04 21 2015
  1:27 am  
     •     
40 Years of Service
Julianne Malveaux

When the Koch Foundation gave the United Negro College Fund $25 million, it set off a maelstrom of comments in cyberspace and real time.  How dare the UNCF take money from the Koch brothers, some asked.  They ought to send it back, said others.  One woman told me she would never give to UNCF again because of the Koch donation.  Another says the Koch donation changes her perception of UNCF.

The donation will provide $18.5 million in scholarships, money that is badly needed to get some of our young people out of school, especially with the cuts so many experienced because of reduced access to the Parent Plus loan. Another $4 million will go to the 37 UNCF schools for general support, again to make up some of the losses that came from reduced enrollment due to Parent Plus.  The remainder goes to UNCF for their general support.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Koch scholarships will be awarded to students with good grades, financial needs, and an interest in studying how “entrepreneurship, economics and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.”  Sounds like conservative free markets to me.  More than that, it sounds like granting scholarships to further the Koch government-reducing, free market focus.  Koch protects its interest by having two seats on the five member scholarship committee, with the other three from the UNCF.  While non-Koch interests are the majority, it will be interesting to see if a donor can sway a committee.

What else?  The Koch brothers are making the most of this gift in the media. Rarely have I seen so many headlines generated by a gift of that size. $100 million, maybe.  $250 million, surely.  But while $25 million will mean a lot to the UNCF, schools such as Harvard would likely consider it nothing more than a modest behest. The Koch brothers must think they’ll get some positive publicity from their gift, and they obviously have the PR team to pitch it.

Furthermore, these are the very Koch brothers who have supported voter suppression efforts. They would reduce the size of government, which means the Pell grants that so many students depend on would shrink in size. What one hand gives, in other words, the other takes away.  If the Koch brothers would fight to maintain or increase the size of the Pell grant, fewer would look askance at their gift.  Instead, many see this as the cynical manipulation of a deep-pockets donor who gets much publicity from their gift.

It kind of reminds me of the Donald Sterling gift to the Los Angeles branch of the NAACP. After Sterling’s racist rant, his donation was returned. Still, the NAACP was in the process of giving him a second lifetime achievement award prior to his verbal rampage. Indeed the 2014 outrage against Sterling had elements of class bias. The multi-million dollar players weren’t angry when he discriminated against African Americans and Latinos in the slum housing he owned – which cost him a couple of million dollars to settle with the Justice Department – but they were dismayed when he made negative comments about them. Their earlier silence equaled acquiescence to Sterling’s racism; their protest suggested that they would get angry only when rancid racism was directed at them.

Do basketball players really think that Sterling is the only NBA owner who harbors racist views?  Those owners have enough sense not to articulate them publicly.  If they know that other owners share Sterling’s views then they condone closed door racism, not the open door kind.  If they are aware, and don’t care or share, they are making deals with the devil.

If the Koch brothers are the devil, then most of our organizations are making deals with the devil. Look at the list of sponsors for any African American organization or event.  Sit through a board meeting, and listen to folks review possible sponsors, many corporate.  There are “good” corporations whose diversity portfolio is robust, and then there are those who need a little help.  The need for funds notwithstanding, are we for sale for the price of a table or a few salmon (used to be chicken) dinners?

On the other hand, when the New York Times criticized the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation for its corporate support, Elsie Scott, the then-director said that if we spent money on certain products it was only right that we get their support.  Does this apply to the Koch donation?

Unfortunately, too many African American organizations buy what we want and beg for what we need.  Many in the African American community have $25 million to give to the United Negro College Fund.  Many could spend the dollars to support our students.  The fact that we do not leaves us vulnerable to contributions like Koch, contributions that come with strings and, perhaps, a conservative agenda.

 Should UNCF President Michael Lomax send the money back?  Only if someone steps up to replace it. The $18.5 million for scholarships represents 3,700 scholarships for students.  If the $4 million is divided equally among 37 schools, it means $108,000 per school, enough to hire back one of the people laid off and to support some programs.  Should Michael Lomax lay down with the devil?  Where is the angel?

Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer.  She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.

Pacific NW Carpenters Union

Commenting Guidelines

  • Keep it clean: Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language
  • No personal attacks: We reserve the right to remove offensive comments
  • Be truthful: Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything
  • Be nice: No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person
  • Help us: If you see an abusive post, let us know at info@theskanner.com
  • Keep to topic: We will remove irrelevant posts and spam
  • Share with us: We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts; the history behind an article

Recently Published by The Skanner News

  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
  • Some two thousand people pack halls to hear Trayvon Martin's mom speak   
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all
Carpentry Professionals

PHOTO GALLERY

Calendar

About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast
The Skanner Photo Archives