THE New York Daily News last week reported an unpublicized whites-only graduate fellowship at Columbia University, and the news quickly spread throughout the country that J.P. Morgan, the bank which oversees the fund, and the university have gone to court and asked to remove the whites-only clause.

The intentions of Lydia S. Roberts, a wealthy Iowa widow who bequeathed her entire estate of $500,000 to Columbia in 1920 to set up the graduate fellowship, will likely be discarded in Manhattan Supreme Court and her wealth used for purposes other than those she specified. You might call this theft, but if it is, it’s not a new type of theft. Many of the people who bequeathed their hard-earned wealth to American colleges and universities surely never intended to subsidize students from Saudi Arabia or China or to deny financial assistance to applicants purely because they are white.

Fortunately Mrs. Roberts does not have the ability to object. If she were somehow brought back to life, she might ask some embarrassing questions about the tens of thousands of students who receive scholarships reserved for nonwhites every year. She might not understand that the vast white intellectual underclass, faced with crushing debt and dim prospects, represents a form of justice. But then she was the product of an un-enlightened era.

Mrs. Roberts has been posthumously educated.

— Comments —

Fred Owens writes:

Can one designate scholarship funds for a descendants of a certain ethnicity? Can the Sons of Norway Lodge make awards to students of Norwegian ancestry?

This seems more agreeable to me than a designation for whites or Caucasians.

Laura writes:

I’m sure there are some, though not many, ethnic scholarships for whites.

I guess you think that’s more agreeable because the white race seems too much of an abstraction. Do you feel the same about scholarships for Negroes or Asians or Hispanics?

A reader writes:

Don Vincenzo writes:

Your reader states: If a judge does overturn the terms of the gift, perhaps it will create a precedent that can be used to overturn scholarships earmarked for other ethnicities. A little background here would be helpful.

The scholarship funding for Mrs. Roberts’s “whites-only graduate program” was granted to a private institution, which, theoretically, is free to use the money in the manner for which it was donated. In the case of Columbia University, that request will not be honored, for regardless of the decision of the New York State court, there are few institutions so corrupted by “political correctness” than that institution of higher learning in the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Several years ago, it chose as its President, Lee Bollinger, former Dean of the School of Law at the University of Michigan, someone so tainted by the “political correctness” zeitgeist that he was accused of openly using quotas to obtain sufficient numbers of blacks and other minorities into that school of law. That clear violation of constitutional equality was, if anything, a curriculum enhancer when the Trustees of Columbia sought a new president. But what about state institutions, where mainly public funds are used to support the school? Quick answer: The same rules apply. To see what I mean, look at the Benjamin Banneker Scholarship Program at the University of Maryland.

The official raison-d’etre of this totally racially exclusive program at a state university, which began in 1979, is the following: The Banneker Scholars (Program) …is an essential element in the diversity of the campus. And they serve as outstanding role models for all students, but most especially for other black students, eloquently signaling that today’s University of Maryland offers a supportive, welcoming environment for all high-achieving students.

And then the necessary disclaimer: Should Maryland or any university continue race-based scholarship programs indefinitely? Obviously not. But the essential work of this affirmative action program is not yet done.

Since 1979, the Banneker Program for only black students has remained in place. It would be delusional on anyone’s part to believe that a legal challenge would eliminate the program. That stricture applies only to funding “all-white” programs, another step along the way in what the late Lawrence Auster described as “the path to national suicide.”

The reader responds:

Don’s logic does not quite flow:

“The scholarship funding for Mrs. Roberts’s ”whites-only graduate program” was granted to a private institution, which, theoretically, is free to use the money in the manner for which it was donated. In the case of Columbia University, that request will not be honored, for regardless of the decision of the New York State court, there are few institutions so corrupted by “political correctness” than that institution of higher learning in the Upper West Side of Manhattan.”

If Columbia is free to do what they want, then why do they need to go to court?

 Laura writes:

The university must obtain permission to change the terms of the bequest.

Please follow and like us: