The Color of Charity
|AR Articles on Non-White Pressure Groups|
|Pushing Out Whitey (Mar. 2000)|
|Malicious Intent: Two White Cops Sacrificed (Oct. 2000)|
|Chavis Chagrined (Sep. 1994)|
|Search AmRen.com for Non-White Pressure Groups|
|More news stories on Non-White Pressure Groups|
Just when we thought we’d heard everything from the diversity police, here they come trying to prescribe even the color of charity. The California Assembly last week passed a bill sponsored by state Representative Joe Coto to require foundations with assets of more than $250 million to disclose the race, gender and sexual orientation of their trustees, staff, and even grantees. Look for this to arrive in a legislature near you.
A Berkeley-based advocacy group called the Greenlining Institute hatched this idea because, allegedly, racial minorities aren’t well enough represented in California policy debates. John Gamboa, Greenlining’s executive director, blames foundations for failing to donate enough money to “minority-led” think tanks and community groups and businesses, and he hopes this legislation will “shame” them into giving more. What counts as a minority-led organization? According to Greenlining, the board and staff should both be more than 50% minority.
Mr. Gamboa says these philanthropies have tax-exempt status, so the public has a right to this information. “Minorities are paying a little more in taxes but are not receiving their fair share of benefits,” he says. This seems an odd claim, since so much private charity is targeted explicitly at minorities. But it makes sense once you understand that what he means is that not enough of this cash is channelled through certain minority-run activist groups, such as, well, his own. It’s no accident that such ethnic lobbies as the Black Business Association and the Centro Legal de la Raza also love this idea.
Paul Brest is a former NAACP attorney and president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, California’s largest foundation. And in a letter to the state Assembly on Mr. Coto’s proposal, he put it this way: “[Our] fundamental operating principle is to direct our resources to organizations that have the promise of making the greatest difference in achieving [our philanthropic] goals. Thus, we do not focus on the racial composition of our grantees, but rather on how to achieve measurable impact in improving the lives of the communities that our grant recipients serve.”
Lest you think this idea is too wacky to go anywhere, it is also expected to pass the California Senate and could soon land on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The Greenlining staff is already lobbying House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel for Congressional hearings. Foundations and charities that don’t want to start apportioning their donations by skin color, or between gays and heterosexuals, had better start describing this idea as the political shakedown it is.
(Posted on February 5, 2008)
“This seems an odd claim, since so much private charity is targeted explicitly at minorities.”
No to mention public charity in the form of welfare and assistance programs.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 7:06 PM on February 5
Just goes to show how nutty they are on the West Coast…but then….look what they have for a Governor…..so sad!!
Posted by lydia at 7:50 PM on February 5
“According to Greenlining, the board and staff should both be more than 50% minority.”
MORE than 50% “minority”??? Apparently he’s too dense to see the joke in that.
Posted by voter at 8:21 PM on February 5
“A Berkeley-based advocacy group called the Greenlining Institute hatched this idea because, allegedly, racial minorities aren’t well enough represented in California policy debates.”
Bet they aren’t well represented in giving end of the equation either.
Posted by Sailor at 9:07 PM on February 5
As if they don’t get enough in the way of handouts from the myriad Federal programs that are out there, now they want to extract money from charity with the force of law? Amazing.
Posted by at 9:14 PM on February 5
No telling how revealing such a mandate might be. Provided that appropriate real enforcement of well crafted truth reporting protocols were guaranteed, I would be willing to roll the dice on this proposal, if for no other reason to see who the monied race traitors are in this country.
Posted by underdog at 9:56 PM on February 5
This all makes perfect sense, as step 1.
Step 2? Remove the tax-exempt status of charities that don’t meet stated diversity goals. I expect to see this the 2nd or 3rd year of a HillBilly or Osama administration.
Posted by Ginnungagap at 11:46 PM on February 5
“John Gamboa, Greenlining’s executive director, blames foundations for failing to donate enough money to “minority-led” think tanks and community groups and businesses, and he hopes this legislation will “shame” them into giving more.”
Will these charitable trusts learn anything from these uppity usurpers? I doubt it. It’s more likely they will genuflect in shame before their new overlords.
Of course, this is nothing more than redistribution of wealth. Minorities see the money and they want it NOW and they see no need to fill out grant applications or submit proposals. They have no sense of how to generate capital or invest for the future. This may end up being a good thing. After these money grabbers gain access to check book, every one of these charities will go bankrupt in less than 10 years.
It’s always nice to see do-gooders destroyed by the people they wanted to help. It’s true justice.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 12:03 AM on February 6
The California Assembly last week passed a bill sponsored by state Representative Joe Coto to require foundations with assets of more than $250 million to disclose the race, gender and sexual orientation of their trustees, staff, and even grantees. Look for this to arrive in a legislature near you.
More subterfuge from our Master Deceptioners? Will this include analyzing the ranks of ACLU, SPLC, B’nai Brith, ADL and the other assorted subversives as so carefully documented by so many web librarian/researchers/truth tellers?
Don’t waste precious time thinking it’s a possibility.
Posted by Voir Dire at 12:34 AM on February 6
Asking about sexual orientation? Is that legal?
Posted by EW at 4:38 AM on February 6
Schwarzneggar pretends to be a Republican, but there’s enough liberalism in him that it wouldn’t surprise me if he supported this trash.
Posted by Cindy at 7:14 AM on February 6
Fine. Then the government must publish a strict legal definition of race and sexual orientation. The government must define in clear terms what these things mean.
As it is now, anyone can claim any race and sexual orientation.
Posted by at 7:43 AM on February 6
It’s no surprise such a bill passed. Non-profits have no problem limiting their discrimination to whites receiving charity.
Posted by at 12:46 PM on February 6
Wouldn’t you love to know the amount that minorities in this country actually give to charity?
Posted by Dennis at 2:38 PM on February 6
If they have to disclose the race of the people giving to the charities we’ll be able to see just how much well-to-do blacks contribute to charity. I’m guessing the number will be very small.
Posted by WR the elder at 9:13 PM on February 6
“More subterfuge from our Master Deceptioners? Will this include analyzing the ranks of [certain] other assorted subversives?”
- - - - - - - - - -
Great point!!! I would imagine that at the eleventh hour, an arrangement will be worked out. There is always room for special exemptions. And did you notice that there was no mention of including religious groups? — even though they would have the nerve to ask people about their “sexual orientation”!
I suspect that those affiliated with “religious groups” will be exempted from any such legislation. It always happens.
Posted by browser at 2:50 AM on February 7
“Wouldn’t you love to know the amount that minorities in this country actually give to charity?”
Posted by Dennis
- - - - - - - - -
Well, Dennis, that all depends on what you mean by a “minority”.
Posted by browser at 3:01 AM on February 7
Donor race should also be required.
In the UK it is an established fact that whilst minorities benefit most from charty money they are the least likely to give, regardless of their economic resources.
In addition, those that do tend to give do so to their own charities which exclude support for whites and other minorities. This of course is quite acceptable for the authorities though I know that mainstream charities are constantly scrutinised to ensure that their resources are actively targeted at minorities.
Furthermore it is known that millions of Pounds of public money support minority charities. Many of the Muslim charities have very dubious set ups and are often linked to Islamic activities that are anti-western
Posted by Geoff Miller at 6:40 AM on February 7
This is just another scam to give good jobs to useless minorities. The so called charities are allowed by federal law to spend 89 percent of their income on salaries and administration costs and only 11 percent given to the actual beneficiaries of the charity.
Charity workers are generally paid about 30 percent more that comparable government or private sector jobs. And they stay in the US. They don’t outsource.
So this is just imposing an EEOC quota system on the well paid charity job market. And I am sure that the black women employed by the charities will embark on their usual campaign of hatred, agression, bullying, threats etc to drive White women from those jobs.
Posted by at 2:30 PM on February 7
“Fine. Then the government must publish a strict legal definition of race and sexual orientation. The government must define in clear terms what these things mean. “
Posted by at 7:43 AM
They must also give us a clear definition of what is meant by a “minority”. Aren’t whites already a mathematical minority in California? Obviously, it’s not so simple as that; math has nothing to do with it, but competing racial self-interests. Just what is considered a “minority” in today’s California?
In a state where the “minorities” have become the majority, and the majority is the “minority”, just what is all this babble about anyway?
Posted by ghw at 3:31 PM on February 7
“In addition, those that do tend to give do so to their own charities which exclude support for whites and other minorities. This of course is quite acceptable for the authorities…”
I personally have no problem with this, for those who want to help their own. It should be their right, though it may cause problems with the strict egalitarians. But in this case, they (the egalitarians) will lose.
Otherwise, people will stop giving. Or they will find a way to give through other channels. And I don’t mean ordinary people who give pennies; I mean people who have real money, big money. These are the same people who control the political parties and sign the checks that pay the politicians. They get their way. You don’t say “no” to the guy who pays you; just as the bread doesn’t say “no” to its butter!
As another poster already said, perhaps a convenient loophole will be found for those groups able to claim a “religious” affiliation. I have absolutely no doubt of it. For the powerful, an exemption can always be found.
To get off the track a bit, we are brought up being incessantly told that in this country we have a democratic form of government. Actually, what we have, above all, is a plutocratic government. This is something that the very rich (at least those who also have a political agenda) are well aware of, although the masses are not supposed to know. In their free time, between their beer and sports and their obsession with celebrities, the masses are allowed to choose from among the pre-selected candidates that the controlled parties and media have placed before them. We are once again witnessing this phenomenon going on right now, under our noses.
Posted by ghw at 4:10 PM on February 7
I have no problem with thise at all. Big foundations like Hewlett and Ford and Rockefeller are some of the most aggressive pushers of multiculturalism around. Give them taste of their own medicine and maybe they’ll wisen up.
Posted by Alan at 10:54 PM on February 17