Whites Only Scholarship

I have recently been looking for funding for graduate school. Anyone who has ever gone to graduate school knows that funding is hard to come by. It is considerably more scarce than money for undergraduate studies. There are no grants offered by the government whatsoever, so any funding that is out there is provided by private companies or by the school’s program itself. In a select few cases, there are government fellowships that are extraordinarily competitive. In short, funding is quite rare.

However, during my search, I have come across a lot of funding that is offered for minority groups, and even more recently, I came across some funding that is only applicable for LGBTQ individuals. After doing some research, I even found out that there are even more interesting cases of funding being given, such as a scholarship for people who are left-handed.

I am not inherently against any of these scholarships. My point for bringing them up is that so many of them exist, but there are only a few (almost no) scholarships for caucasians, particularly male caucasians. The general argument is that caucasians don’t need scholarships because simply being caucasian is a privilege in itself. Being male is also a privilege. Therefore, (male) caucasians don’t need funding.

That argument is ludicrously fallacious. Being against male caucasian scholarships is a form of racism. Just because some caucasians have historically treated African Americans with disdain does not mean I should suffer for their mistakes. Because caucasians historically oppressed African Americans, by extension, all of the caucasians, no matter what age, educational or familial background, have to atone for those sins?

Just because there are a lot of caucasian people in government and in senior level positions does not mean I should be held back just to let other races “catch up” to caucasians. Am I not allowed to have opportunities because there are other caucasian people who do have opportunities? That doesn’t make sense to me, especially because I am not them. I am not a rich caucasian man. I did not oppress African Americans or any other race of people. I have nothing to do with the lives of other caucasian individuals, especially the well-to-do ones in this country.

Therefore, why is there an issue for caucasians to have scholarships? A simple online search for “whites only scholarship” will bring up a multitude of opponents for why these opportunities should not exist. Here are two specific YouTube videos discussing the issue:

So why do very few of these scholarships exist? Is it because of the opposition from people like the ones in those YouTube videos? Is it because it looks better for an organization to offer individuals of color scholarships instead? Is it because there really aren’t many organizations that exist for the advancement of caucasians? I’m willing to bet that is a part of it, and even if that sort of organization did exist, it would be met with a considerable amount of criticism.

Another factor to consider in this debate is whether caucasians are generally more privileged than other races. I think, in some instances, they are, but it depends on the race you are comparing them to, to be honest. Of course, it is also important to consider opportunities on a case by case basis. But for argument’s sake, let us assume that caucasians are typically more privileged than other races here in the United States.

I come from a very modest background, and I know other caucasian males who do, as well. In that sense, we are just as underprivileged as any other race of people on an individual level, which is what is most important. We should, just like many other groups of people, be given the opportunity to flourish. Caucasian only scholarships, like many other race-based scholarships, would not be available to those who already have an abundance of access to resources. They would be available to underprivileged caucasians who want an affordable education through a merit-based award system. They would function just the same as any other scholarship, except they would be available for caucasians specifically.

Honestly, this shouldn’t even be the center of the discussion. Instead of focusing on race, funding opportunities should be focused on giving the underprivileged an affordable education. Just like African Americans would not want their scholarships being given to other advantaged African Americans, “whites only” scholarships are only trying to promote the lives of those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

And that’s what the discussion should be focused on. If a student does not have the resources to attend school, then they should be given a reasonable chance to do so, regardless of race. Race has nothing to do with it, besides being a general barometer for what social class people tend to fall under. It’s not an automatic classification. Poor caucasians should be given comparable funding opportunities in relation to other races.

Actually, from the research I have done online, it seems like most people support caucasian only scholarships. I think the main reason they are not prevalent is because of the poor media attention they get and the people who say caucasian only scholarships are racist (which is simply ridiculous). Also, there just aren’t that many “caucasian advancement” organizations out there. Historically, I would agree that there didn’t need to be many, but as the disparity in social class between different races lessens, it would be beneficial for more of them to exist. I guess it’s just not a popular cause for people to champion, especially if they are looking to gain backers or political clout.

However, in the interest of fairness, I think there needs to be better funding opportunities for all different races of people. Poor is poor, and rich is rich, and that is all that should matter.

Public Transportation: Washington D.C.

Usually, I love public transportation, but recently, it’s been bothering me. Maybe it’s just that D.C. public transportation is terrible, which is making me angry. Whatever the case, I can’t stand it recently.

First off, the price. D.C. has the most expensive public transportation I have ever taken in my life. It’s based on distance, which is sensible, but the base prices are just way too high. The lowest possible fare is still more expensive than any fare you would find in Seoul for a comparable distance traveled.

According to the WMATA (D.C. Metro’s servicer), the price for fares during off-peak hours is this:

• $1.75 minimum + a $1 surcharge if a paper farecard is used

During peak hours, which is when most people will be traveling, of course, it’s this:

• $2.15 minimum + a $1 surcharge if a paper farecard is used

In Seoul, the cost is 1,150 won, which is about a dollar or so. Also, it’s a flat fare unless you really start moving out of the main city area, in which case, the price goes up unsubstantially.

In Tokyo, the minimum cost is about $1.50 with the maximum cost being around $3.

This seems comparable until you look at the maximum fares for the D.C. metro. Fares in the D.C. area go up significantly based on the distance traveled. Here are the maximum fares during both off-peak and peak hours:

• $3.60 maximum + a $1 surcharge if a paper farecard is used
• $5.90 maximum + a $1 surcharge if a paper farecard is used

$6 to ride the subway? Are you kidding me? That’s absurd. Assuming you’re from out of town and you don’t know what you’re doing and you happen to buy all paper farecards (which happens), you’re paying an extra $1 per ride.

This maximum fare price isn’t some magical land of Oz number that never happens either. To go to work from my house, I pay $4. I only ride one line, too. No transfers needed. And it’s $4. That’s $8 a day. For those who have to make transfers, and those who live quite a distance away from their destination, they will be paying closer to the $6 maximum. Who can afford this? Not everybody in the D.C. area is some rich bigwig. I am sure am not. It’s no surprise that some people try to get a free fare whenever possible.

I could understand such a high price if the subways were lined with flower petals, gave out free food and shoe shines and smelled of lavender, but obviously, this isn’t the case.

The only worse subway system I have ever been on is the New York City subway system, which was simply a disgusting mess. At least NYC’s subways actually worked, though. D.C.’s subways are the most unreliable transportation system I have ever taken. Even the trains and buses that travel the back roads of Thailand are more reliable.

Fortunately for me, I ride a pretty straightforward route. There are no transfers, and the side of town that I come from is less crowded than the other side. For those coming from the west side, they have a much more difficult time. Countless delays mar the subway system on a daily basis over there, and I know people who have waited for over thirty minutes for their train to move.

The problem comes from the way that the subway system is designed. Many of the subway’s lines travel through the same tracks. This creates multiple problems. For one, when you have a delay, it delays not only the trains on the line you’re traveling on, but it delays trains on the other colored lines. This creates a compounding problem where one delay creates delays for the rest of the day for all of the lines that travel along that track.

Although, since there is no order whatsoever, I guess it creates consistency out of chaos. When none of the trains arrive at the expected times, trains simply run when they can, and they eventually show up at the station. Thus, the unreliability of trains makes them consistently sporadic, which becomes the new norm. Compared to Japan and Korea’s impeccable punctuality in their subway systems, though, D.C.’s system is substandard and ineffective.

Besides the delays that are caused by having all of the trains run on one track, it makes track upkeep much more crucial to providing a more reliable service. I suppose, in the long run, it means employing less workers because there are less tracks to service, but if that’s the case, then why is the price so high? What exactly is my money paying for when the service I receive is worse in every way than every other country with public transportation; yet it still costs more?

As an aside, each station only employs a couple different escalators for passengers to use. Those, too, are oftentimes broken down. Many of them are shut down completely for repairs, so you can’t even use them as stairs if you want to. This railroads people getting off of trains, creating a large line to wait for escalators when trying to leave a station.

Unfortunately, despite all of the problems that people have with the public transportation in D.C., what can they do about it? If everyone takes their cars, then commuting would be impossible. There are also no places to park in D.C. You are basically expected to take public transportation, walk or ride a bike. Most cars in D.C. are typically just driving through to a different destination. It’s a terrible place for cars, as can be expected in most large cities.

Because of this, WMATA can pretty much charge as much as they want for their services, so long as they don’t incite a riot from commuters. Some people working for the government and other jobs also get transit subsidies, which keeps them complacent enough. For everyone else, it’s quite the gimmick. With no way of transportation into the city other than public transportation, people are required to pay the absurd prices WMATA charges, and they can’t do anything about it.

At least the buses are cheaper than the subway, but they are quite unreliable, as well. Bus schedules are also much more confusing than subway schedules, and bus travel times are typically longer. So, I’m not sure if buses are a reasonable alternative to taking the subway.

WMATA simply needs to charge reasonable prices for their services, a mantra that U.S. businesses should actually consider embracing. The American people are being gouged by businesses like the WMATA, and while it sure is good for their business, it does not create a happy or productive society. Oppressing people for monetary gain doesn’t even bring oppressors happiness.

Let’s start, as a society, getting our act together, or America will continue to fall apart. WMATA can start by lowering the cost of their services.

Euthanasia: People vs. Pets

My family is going to have to put down our dog pretty soon because she is getting old and apparently, is suffering from different maladies. It’s a sad state of affairs whenever a family pet dies or has to be put down, but obviously, it’s a part of life. Certainly, it’s better to put down pets who are in pain rather than let them continue living until they die naturally. Most people accept this as a natural part of life and simply put down their pets when the time comes.

On the other hand, though, when it comes to human life, there are quite a number of restrictions placed on physician-assisted suicide, whether it be for yourself or for somebody who cannot speak for themselves. My question is, why are there so many restrictions in place like this, while the process for putting down pets is so much easier?

The only reason I can really think of is that human life is regarded more highly than animal life. That’s why it is much easier to put down pets than let humans commit suicide. There is an implication that it is a serious decision to end a person’s life, which I definitely agree with. It is something that shouldn’t be discussed lightly. But at the same time, what about animals? Is it easier to euthanize animals simply because they cannot voice their own opinions on the matter? Do we have to make that decision for them since they can’t do it for themselves?

I am of the opinion that the real reason is because humans cannot actually talk to animals. Sure. We can communicate with them. But we can’t have a conversation with them. Basic feelings aside, it is difficult to understand what an animal is actually trying to convey to you, and that is why euthanizing them is much easier than euthanizing a human being. The emotional attachment that humans have to animals is not as strong as humans have to themselves. This emotional attachment gives credence to the basic standard of values that people have among themselves. Other animals simply do not adhere to these same standards, which is why euthanizing them is considerably easier. If this is true, though, why do humans who cannot communicate effectively get different treatment than animals? The Terri Schiavo case certainly comes to mind when thinking about this discrepancy.

So now that the why is out of the way, does that make it right?

In regards to animals, I think taking them to a veterinarian and having them give an official “okay” to putting down a pet is sufficient enough to go through with euthanasia. If a pet’s owner describe noises and actions that a pet makes that makes it seem like the pet is in pain and is at the right point in their life to be put down, then I think that is a decent enough standard to follow. I’m sure there are other procedures that go into a veterinarian’s decision to put down a pet that I am unaware of, as well.

My contention is with how we treat euthanasia for people. With how seemingly easily humans are able to put down animals, there are only a number of states that even allow physician-assisted suicide in the United States. The majority of nations across the world do not allow any form of it either.

This essentially means that we are allowed to take the life of another animal, creatures that we cannot communicate with effectively, much more easily than we are allowed to take our own lives. Why is it that we can decide it is alright to kill another animal but not ourselves? Do we not suffer as much as other animals? If a person says he does not want to live his life anymore, should we forbid him from ending it? We make that same decision for animals every day simply because we cannot effectively tell what an animal wants from us, but when a person says they want that same treatment, it is either completely forbidden or a much more difficult process altogether. That doesn’t seem right.

This is especially true for terminally ill people. Should they be forced to live out the rest of their lives in increasing pain just because society dictates that suicide is illegal? I don’t think so. Everybody has the right to life, but most people don’t have the right to death apparently. A person is only allowed to die when laws deem it appropriate. That makes no sense to me.

The laws regarding euthanizing animals are just fine, but laws concerning physician-assisted suicide need to be reevaluated to better serve the population. There is no reason people should be given the authority to kill other creatures but not themselves, particularly when people are terminally ill or even less responsive than the animals we put down on a daily basis.