Tweet
This will most definitely spark some debate, or at least I would hope so. However, I'm also wondering if there's anyone who knows how this all ultimately turned out?
The Backstory
My Take
Recently (this past year or so) the University of Rhode Island Republican Club sponsored a "White, Heterosexual American Male" scholarship. This scholarship was for the amount of $100, IIRC, and required all applicants to fill out a form identifying themselves as white, heterosexual American males (WHAMs) and to complete and submit an essay about how being a WHAM had affected their lives.
Most, if not all, of the essays received were satirical (as was the scholarship itself), but the Student Government Association of URI took great offense to the scholarship, obviously, calling it "racist" and "homophobic", as well as "intolerant". The URI SGA demanded that the URI Republicans cancel the scholarship and publicly apologize in writing for their sponsorship of the scholarship, and threatened to disband the Republican Club if the demands were not met.
URI Republicans were contacted by UMass Republican Club officials (who had been planning a similar scholarship for some time) and put in touch with FIRE, who presumably could help with their battle against the SGA. Under U.S. law, it is illegal for any entity to obtain a statement from any other entity while said second entity is under duress, as was the case here.
I believe the SGA ruling to disband the Republican Club was overturned (as it should have been), and the scholarship was never actually awarded (though it could legally have been, in theory). That, however, is not my point. My question to you all is, was the Republican Club (or would any organization be) wrong in creating such an exclusive scholarship, or was the point they intended to make a valid one? And, what do you think the point was that they were trying to make?
As for me, I supported the Republicans in their scholarship (and how rarely do I support most Republicans these days?). I would've thought it was in poor taste to see it actually awarded, but discovered later that the scholarship was created purely to spark a political and racial debate, and not to benefit white, heterosexual American males to the exclusion of all others.
The point they seem to have made is that every race, gender, national heritage and sexuality has the right to organize and to exclude all others, with the exception of WHAMs. At least in America, that is. There are thousands if not millions of scholarships that are open only to black, Asian, Jewish, disabled, female, or many other demographics, but none that exclude all but WHAMs. As a WHAM myself, I find this perplexing.
When white, heterosexual American women (or other women, but I'm keeping the WHA- part to point out the single difference) gather to support their own cause, it's called a "women's rights" group. When it's a heterosexual gathering of any other nationality, religion or heritage, it becomes the "Asian Students' Association" or the "Hindu Students' Organization", and any gathering of homosexual parties (male and/or female) is a "gay pride" rally, but when a group of white, heterosexual American males groups up, they immediately become "racists", "white supremacists", "neo-Nazis", or any of a thousand other derogatory and generally negative descriptors.
I know I'm not alone in seeing the double standard here. I'm not railing against affirmative action (though I think that's misused at least as often as it's used properly), I'm speaking solely about a group identity. WHAMs are the only demographic that is forbidden, either by popular opinion or law (depending on where you live), from having a group identity. If you disagree, please do comment, but I have yet to find a group of exclusively WHAMs that isn't labeled by the popular majority as "bigoted" or any of the other terms which mean approximately the same.
Oddly enough, nearly every religion can have its own group without fear of repercussions, provided they don't exclude any particular race or gender. That could be why the Republicans didn't go to the extra length of creating a "White Heterosexual Christian American Male" scholarship, but the inclusion of "white", "heterosexual", and "male" would have been enough to hang them regardless of whatever other qualifiers they put in.
And to what extent could this scholarship be broadened while still suffering complaints of bigotry and exclusion? Would a "white male" scholarship be as loathed? What about just a "white" scholarship? Or a "male" scholarship? I think either would be pretty iffy, but particularly the "white" one. Why? Because then you're excluding more than just half of the possible entrants. "Perpetration of the glass ceiling" as in the case of a "male" scholarship seems less offensive to many than "perpetration of white supremacy".
Come on, people. Opinions? Rebuttals? Agree? Disagree? *Chomps at the bit.*
The Backstory
My Take
Recently (this past year or so) the University of Rhode Island Republican Club sponsored a "White, Heterosexual American Male" scholarship. This scholarship was for the amount of $100, IIRC, and required all applicants to fill out a form identifying themselves as white, heterosexual American males (WHAMs) and to complete and submit an essay about how being a WHAM had affected their lives.
Most, if not all, of the essays received were satirical (as was the scholarship itself), but the Student Government Association of URI took great offense to the scholarship, obviously, calling it "racist" and "homophobic", as well as "intolerant". The URI SGA demanded that the URI Republicans cancel the scholarship and publicly apologize in writing for their sponsorship of the scholarship, and threatened to disband the Republican Club if the demands were not met.
URI Republicans were contacted by UMass Republican Club officials (who had been planning a similar scholarship for some time) and put in touch with FIRE, who presumably could help with their battle against the SGA. Under U.S. law, it is illegal for any entity to obtain a statement from any other entity while said second entity is under duress, as was the case here.
I believe the SGA ruling to disband the Republican Club was overturned (as it should have been), and the scholarship was never actually awarded (though it could legally have been, in theory). That, however, is not my point. My question to you all is, was the Republican Club (or would any organization be) wrong in creating such an exclusive scholarship, or was the point they intended to make a valid one? And, what do you think the point was that they were trying to make?
As for me, I supported the Republicans in their scholarship (and how rarely do I support most Republicans these days?). I would've thought it was in poor taste to see it actually awarded, but discovered later that the scholarship was created purely to spark a political and racial debate, and not to benefit white, heterosexual American males to the exclusion of all others.
The point they seem to have made is that every race, gender, national heritage and sexuality has the right to organize and to exclude all others, with the exception of WHAMs. At least in America, that is. There are thousands if not millions of scholarships that are open only to black, Asian, Jewish, disabled, female, or many other demographics, but none that exclude all but WHAMs. As a WHAM myself, I find this perplexing.
When white, heterosexual American women (or other women, but I'm keeping the WHA- part to point out the single difference) gather to support their own cause, it's called a "women's rights" group. When it's a heterosexual gathering of any other nationality, religion or heritage, it becomes the "Asian Students' Association" or the "Hindu Students' Organization", and any gathering of homosexual parties (male and/or female) is a "gay pride" rally, but when a group of white, heterosexual American males groups up, they immediately become "racists", "white supremacists", "neo-Nazis", or any of a thousand other derogatory and generally negative descriptors.
I know I'm not alone in seeing the double standard here. I'm not railing against affirmative action (though I think that's misused at least as often as it's used properly), I'm speaking solely about a group identity. WHAMs are the only demographic that is forbidden, either by popular opinion or law (depending on where you live), from having a group identity. If you disagree, please do comment, but I have yet to find a group of exclusively WHAMs that isn't labeled by the popular majority as "bigoted" or any of the other terms which mean approximately the same.
Oddly enough, nearly every religion can have its own group without fear of repercussions, provided they don't exclude any particular race or gender. That could be why the Republicans didn't go to the extra length of creating a "White Heterosexual Christian American Male" scholarship, but the inclusion of "white", "heterosexual", and "male" would have been enough to hang them regardless of whatever other qualifiers they put in.
And to what extent could this scholarship be broadened while still suffering complaints of bigotry and exclusion? Would a "white male" scholarship be as loathed? What about just a "white" scholarship? Or a "male" scholarship? I think either would be pretty iffy, but particularly the "white" one. Why? Because then you're excluding more than just half of the possible entrants. "Perpetration of the glass ceiling" as in the case of a "male" scholarship seems less offensive to many than "perpetration of white supremacy".
Come on, people. Opinions? Rebuttals? Agree? Disagree? *Chomps at the bit.*
.....
Comment