Nonsense. Racial minorities in that class (families with no college background) are demonstrably disadvantaged (that’s a scientifically demonstrable fact; indeed, one of the links I provided begins by discussing the prison pipelining problem affecting racial minorities in poor neighborhoods, something you evidently need to learn more about; likewise studies of standard scholarship awards which show significant racial bias in favor of whites).

Charity to redress that injustice is justifiable, not discriminatory. If poor white people were being disproportionately mistreated relative to people of color, then we’d be erecting charities to help them. But alas, that’s not what is happening (at least not in South LA). It’s the other way around. And we are right to respond to the facts as they are, not as you would wish them to be.

As the program grows to other neighborhoods, different facts on the ground may call for different applications of the program. That’s up to the BSLA. But there are already examples of caucasian-only scholarship programs in places where whites are the minority and disproportionately affected (Tennessee State University has such a program).

Your own principles would entail this. If a scholarship should target a class of person in need, and we have two classes of persons, in which all else is equal, yet in class A 10% more money is being directed to them than to persons in class B, persons in class B are the persons in need (by a differential of 10%). If what puts you in class B happens to be race, then it’s having that race that puts you in disproportionate need. If it were not race but merely, say, being an orphan, then that would be the need-creating factor. And whether race is or is not a need-creating factor is a matter for scientific data to indicate, not armchair imagination.