The ‘Diversity’ Threat to California Charity
| More news stories on Non-White Pressure Groups |
|---|
Heather R. Higgins, Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2008
A bill purporting to encourage diversity among nonprofits has passed the California Assembly and faces a key vote in the state senate in early June. While little attention has been paid to this bill, it poses an enormous threat to private philanthropy in this country.
The Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act requires California foundations with $250 million in assets to report the composition by ethnicity and gender orientation of their boards and staffs, the boards and staffs of the charities they support, and the degree to which they are run by or support certain minorities.
{snip}
Champions of the bill claim that its only goal is to “request diversity data.” Then why force the donors to collect this information from grantees, instead of asking each registered charitable organization simply to report the information directly to the government? The bill’s critics fear the real goal is to pressure charities into meeting “diversity” goals out of fear of displeasing their funders—who themselves fear that ultimately their ability to set their own goals, or even their tax-exempt status, will be at risk if diversity goals aren’t met.
The bill creates the opportunity for grandstanding, public relations shakedowns, and litigation. Already, foundations that have questioned this legislation have been publicly attacked. The executive director of Greenlining recently stated that “most of our money comes from lawsuits.”
The “diversity” bill, if enacted into law, would be just the beginning. Already contemplated is legislation to cover all foundations, and all grant recipients, not just in California, but nationally; and to broaden reporting requirements to include the aged or the disabled. Ultimately, this all leads in one direction: to politically determine how private charities manage and deploy their resources.
{snip}
Ms. Higgins is on the board of the Philanthropy Roundtable.
(Posted on May 30, 2008)
Comments
They already give most of it to non-Whites the world over, so what is their problem? Who GIVES to the charities to begin with?? Blacks? Mexicans? Asians? Jews? Arabs? WHO? We are getting sicker and sicker in this country thanks to the import of nonwhites into our country! I am fed up with all this anti-white racism going on here! I will not give to charities anymore and haven’t for quite a few years because I know who gets most of it. I only donate to the animal shelters and no-kill shelters, period!
Posted by at 5:30 PM on May 30
Maybe we can pass a law that shows how much charity people of color are giving to white people.
Posted by hugo at 5:51 PM on May 30
“Generosity…that was my first mistake.”-Eli Wallach as Calvera in The Magnificent Seven
A kindness for too long conveyed becomes a right. Actually this law makes perfect sense in a fashion. If you have 250 million dollars a year and choose to help the “unfortunate” year after year, it` makes perfect sense that at some point they should want the help themselves. Both with your money and finally to it! Reminds me of a multi-million dollar charity function I had to attend a while back. The recpient, in an after dinner speech, talked about the donor`s “obligation and responsibility” in helping the less fortunate. I sat in my chair and went, “Damn! He went right from appreciation and congratulation straight on to exhortation.” I also wondered how many donors in the audience picked up on the fact that when the man at the podium talked about “our people” , he didn`t mean my people… Or the ones giving all the money.
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 6:02 PM on May 30
Who then can deny what we have known all along…that all this “Diversity” clap-trap is and always has been nothing but naked, cynical social-engineering of the most obvious and deceitful kind?! Moreover, who can still kid themsleves that we live in a “free” society in a “free” country? Oh well, charity is for fools anyway…
Posted by HH at 6:21 PM on May 30
Of course hysterical gasps of righteous indignation would ensue if this legislative initiative also included requirements to disclose the value of charitible services rendered to illegal aliens. This is a “Mastercard Moment” in terms of the WSJ getting it right for a change.
Posted by underdog at 7:41 PM on May 30
Once again fascism rears it’s ugly head. Fascism = a government which is in control of all facits of society, but perhaps does not own everything. “We the people” have a democratic fascist government, with no relief in sight. Feel free to vote for your next fascist leader.
Posted by White whipping boy at 8:25 PM on May 30
“Ultimately, this all leads in one direction…” Yeah, to me moving back to Italy and helping the new government save Western culture one street corner at a time. Contrary to ne-con propaganda, the likelihood that Europe will save itself are greater - precisley because it faces a real existential threat. America - complacent and prosperous - is sleepwalking into fascism with a purple pill-indiced smile.
Posted by An Ally in NYC at 9:09 PM on May 30
“….to report the composition by ethnicity and gender orientation of their boards and staffs, the boards and staffs of the charities they support, and the degree to which they are run by or support certain minorities.”
If every affected white gives another penny to charity they should be tarred and feathered and driven out of town by stoning.
Wouldn’t it be a shame if this bill cause charities to virtually collapse in California?
Posted by ice at 10:21 PM on May 30
http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/assemblydistricts.html
I found out who my California state rep is and call his office and had a very nice chat with a very bright, supportive staff assistant. She was very familiar with this bill and my rep was working against it.
Let’s focus on winning real victories at the state and local levels.
Posted by JR at 10:45 PM on May 30
The correct thing would be for the charities to politely ask the state of California where their statutory authority to demand this information comes from. No government agency ever wants this sort of information unless it is to be used for control; what can not be counted also can not be managed.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 12:14 AM on May 31
Charity:
Whites giving money to non-whites and non-whites giving money to non-whites. Yeah… That’s fair.
Posted by AvgDude at 12:15 AM on May 31
So it’s ok to target minorities when handing out the green stuff but not when trying to enforce the rule of law? Go figure!
Posted by A. Windaus at 12:22 AM on May 31
Obviously this is an A-B-C-Z kind of thing. “Progressives” (multicult fascists) are now saying they only want to go from A to B. Next they’ll be wanting to go from B to C. Eventually we’ll find ourselves at Z and not even know how we got there, though it was the goal of “progressives” all along. What the hell did you think progressive meant, anyway?
That goal, of course, is to force individuals to give their money only to government favored minorities. If you want to give to any other group you can, but it won’t be eligible for a tax deduction - you’ll still have to pay taxes on it. (The government already denies tax exempt status to Bob Jones University, which does (or used to) discourage interracial dating/marriage).
Have you taken thought to how an individual makes a private caritable donation? A charity that does nort receive the government’s stamp of approval is not a charity. In the future that stamp will include demands that it give mostly or disproportionately to approved groups. Who knows - maybe religions that don’t have the right ethnic balance won’t even qualify.
How far away is the whole country from this? Well California just became a white minority state. This will happen to the rest of the USA at about the same time - in 40 years or so.
Are you ready for “liberal” fascism? It’s on its way.
Posted by Alan at 12:22 AM on May 31
What can you say about the Wall Street Journal? They’re like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. They won’t acknowledge that it’s their very beloved open borders policies that are leading to this tragedy that will soon engulf the entire nation.
Welcome to your future - you created it, after all.
Posted by Alan at 12:35 AM on May 31
One question: are foundations free to move states, like corporations do? I don’t see why they couldn’t. This bill migh cause lots of them to pick up and relocate - and maybe not even spend their money in the state.
One comment: it’s funny, amusing, and satisfying that foundations - many of whom have been at the very forefront of the multicultist agenda - are now getting a taste of their own medicine. Maybe the Getty Foundation, the Haas Foundation and others will open their ideas to the very world they’ve made.
Posted by Billy at 12:41 AM on May 31
Greenlining’s Board of Directors - all working hard to steal all the money they can from white people. Not a single white person on board - can we sue them?
And this is America’s future…
Posted by Alan at 1:10 AM on May 31
Since whites are the most compassionate and least racist of all races (and also inappropriately suffer from ‘white guilt’), they will continue to give charity to their enemies until they become poor themselves due to the imminent Global Depression. Bring it on!!!
Posted by Fred at 2:49 AM on May 31
This bill will do a great deal of harm by turning people off towards making charitable donations.
By the way, it’s Marxism not Fascism that is growing in America.
Posted by at 3:25 AM on May 31
“The Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act requires California foundations with $250 million in assets to report the composition by ethnicity and gender orientation of their boards and staffs, the boards and staffs of the charities they support, and the degree to which they are run by or support certain minorities.”
Yep. Sleepwaking into fascism. Next wait for quotas on manangers and boards like is sweeping through europe now.
Posted by at 5:08 AM on May 31
The 2 main stumbling blocks to my new home in 3rd World SE Asia ever really developing are corruption and politics. It is sad that the USA following this country down the rat hole by allowing politics to take over more and more of the daily lives of the residents of America, just like it does here.
Posted by Lost in Paradise at 6:53 AM on May 31
The measures are very oppressive - they hint of the heavy hand of the state interfering in the most private and personal of all matters.
The next logical step would be for the state to demand that Whites marry non-White partners.
Posted by Kenelm Digby at 8:14 AM on May 31
Let me get this straight: the boards of charities, and the recipients of charities, will be subject to govt bean-counters to be racially equitable; yet charity DONORS will remain, as they have always been, overwhelmingly white?
If the govt directs where your charity money is going, then it is no longer charity, but merely another govt-administered wealth-redistribution scheme. Like federal transfer payments to the states — with whites as the feds and nonwhites as the states.
The only “charities” I’ve given to in recent years have been AmRen.com, VDare.com, and anti-immigrant groups (Tancredo; the Minutemen). Somehow I doubt these foundations are racially diverse enough to satisfy California’s racial bean-counters.
But then, that may be the point of the whole exercise.
Posted by The Incredible Shrinking White Man at 9:11 AM on May 31
Minorities see a pool of money and their hearts pound and they salivate. It’s like looking at an all-you-can-eat free buffet. They see the money and they want the money, now. They don’t see the charity as helping them. They see the charity as an obstacle preventing them from becoming rich right now.
This is a great example of minority thinking; biting off the hand that feeds them. Sure, they can take all the money now in one lump sum but they can’t see the long term consequences of cutting off the supply.
What do you call an organism that feeds off a host until the host is dead?
Posted by sbuffalonative at 10:19 AM on May 31
I give almost nothing to charity anymore unless I know it’s an entirely white operation, & very few of them are. Apparently the government gives my extorted tax dollars away to everyone else.
Posted by JuestPlainMean at 10:38 AM on May 31
What is funny is that the corporations are FORCED, by law, to designate a portion of their income to “charity”…and, so now, they will be FORCED into turning over THEIR money to the charities of the choice of the government…and the charities selected will be those that are diversity-laden…which means that WHITES will be SHUT OUT!…for diversity in this day and age is that where the WHITES are VASTLY OUTNUMBERED or DO NOT EXIST at ALL!
Posted by Suzan Donoghue at 12:44 PM on May 31
Whenever I buy a book at my local independent bookseller, the clerk asks if want to “give back”, that is, donate to non-White charity. I gather that they assume that literate people have both money and guilt. I always say, very clearly, “No.”
The exploitation of Whites by Whites depends upon our unwillingness to be seen as rude. Perhaps next time, I will go further and ask the clerk if she thinks it polite to be begging money from strangers.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:00 PM on May 31
“Once again fascism rears it’s ugly head. Fascism = a government which is in control of all facits of society, but perhaps does not own everything”
Not to pick nitz but under fascism the state is the unit, not the individual. All belongs to the state. The private “owner” is considered to be a trustee or steward of a state asset.
The market operates by permission, for strictly expedient reasons- total elimination of the market means no economy.
Posted by Madame Smythe at 2:44 PM on May 31
This will destroy giving by whites to the nonwhite majority, which in my opinion would be a good thing.
We should support this.
Whites will take care of themselves for the most part.
It will be nonwhites that will be hurt by this legislation.
I say good. Let them ‘have their way’.
Posted by at 2:44 PM on May 31
The irony is delicious. The champions of open borders decrying diversity legislation. It is great to see white liberals getting a taste of their own medicine. White liberals mocked working class whites when the white working class complained that liberal legislation such as busing etc was destroying their standard of living. White liberals make a good living from these philanthropic foundations. White liberals are squaking like chickens now that one of their sources of livelihood is threatened. Suddenly white liberals have discoverd a concern for working class whites. Geraldine Ferraro is whining that blacks are pushing out whites from the democratic party.
Posted by Mark at 6:41 PM on May 31
If the People’s Republic of California does this they should also require that charities report on how many of their donors are of which race and how much money is contributed from each race. I am certain that whites will be greatly overrepresented relative to their (ever shrinking) proportion of the population.
Posted by WR the elder at 9:57 PM on May 31
I support this kind of legislation. I give about 10% of my income to charities. Now I will be better able to focus my giving to charities that can actually use the money for some chance of positive result, rather than giving it to charities that flush it down a rat hole. If the board is diverse, the less I will be inclined to contribute to that charity, for example.
Posted by karl of delaware at 10:11 PM on May 31
“I will ask the clerk if thinks it polite to be begging money from strangers.” No, it`s not. What makes her more over the line is asking while she`s holding on to your change. What an immediate way for stores to lose money.
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 10:25 PM on May 31
Like I always say, don’t just post here, write the source:
Posted by Mike B. at 12:22 AM on June 1
All this will do if force charities to multiply and stay below the 250 million dollar mark. The liberal shame game continues. Who authored this absurd bill?
Posted by Robert at 8:11 AM on June 1
Wow. The road to hell really IS paved with “good” intentions…
Can you imagine having to answer questions about your “gender orientation” from some government hack? Talk about invasive government. Truly chilling.
What does Gender Orientation mean anyway? Does it mean your sexual partner preference or the gender you believe yourself to be?
What will be the choices on the Required Government Form: female, male, transgendered, transexual, bisexual, homosexual, asexual, recently underwent sex change, seeking sex change, exploring his/her/its sexuality, and I Don’t Know?
Posted by at 2:06 PM on June 1
The diversity bill is completely against everything this country was built on. Big Brother is as out of control as a drunken sailor in Subic Bay on a Saturday night and needs to be brought back under control by the people and confined to quarters, stripped of a rank, and fined 1/2 pay.
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 2:06 AM on June 2
“request diversity data.”
No government agency “requests”. Governments have POWER enforced by police, fines and jail terms.
Governments demand.
For a government to demand this sort of information about compliance with unconstitutional laws is unacceptable - in fact, it’s fascist.
Posted by at 1:07 PM on June 2
“Can you imagine having to answer questions about your “gender orientation” from some government hack? Talk about invasive government. Truly chilling.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I noticed that too. The nerve!
Well, you could always decline to answer, I suppose. But would someone then have the authority to go ahead to rate you as to what THEY percive you to be? Oh, oh!
Or, you could lie. Would they then have the authority to challenge you and demand proof?
Or course, you could just tell the truth — and then be penalized for it!
No way you can win. This is all getting crazier and crazier.
Posted by at 2:34 PM on June 2
“Whenever I buy a book at my local independent bookseller, the clerk asks if want to “give back”, that is, donate to non-White charity. ..Perhaps next time, I will go further and ask the clerk if she thinks it polite to be begging money from strangers.”
Posted by Schoolteacher
…………………….
Or, perhaps next time you could tell her that you havent robbed or deprived anyone of anything (the clear implication), so you have no need to “give back” what you haven’t taken.
Posted by ghw at 2:46 PM on June 2
How about we demand legislation that forces charities to report on the diversity of people who contribute to them? I’ll be willing to bet those numbers are far less diverse…barring, of course, any attempt to doctor the results to make minorities appear philanthropic.
Posted by Concerned Citizen at 3:55 PM on June 2