City of Oakland Mayor is branded racist for giving families of color $500 a month if they earn under $59,000 with no rules on how they spend it - but offering poor white families nothing

A program to give $500 monthly checks to low-income families of color in Oakland, California, has been criticized for explicitly excluding the 10,000 white residents living in poverty in the city.

The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.

According to data from an Oakland Equity Indicators Report, cited by officials to justify favoring people of color, white households earn about three times that of African-American ones.

The same report states around 8 per cent of the city's white residents, approximately 10,000 people, live in poverty.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9399137/Oakland-California-exclude-white-families-living-poverty-500-month-checks.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailus

Uh-oh. He/she needs to FIX IT!

Idiotic scheme, designed to cause division obviously.

Obviously this is not right

BUT

I cant stop thinking when the shoes on the "other foot" how big a story it becomes and the outrage is generates when its white people discriminated against

This is simple going to be norm in the US where states are captured by Critical race theory

It shows that CRT is racist in thinking and fails to learn from the history of racism, by making the same mistakes all over again

The point is, if the shoe was on the other foot, this would be on every single media front page

Didgee wrote:This is simple going to be norm in the US where states are captured by Critical race theory

It shows that CRT is racist in thinking and fails to learn from the history of racism, by making the same mistakes all over again

The point is, if the shoe was on the other foot, this would be on every single media front page

To be honest Didgee i am not sure it would ,America has a long history of segregationist policies, especially in the south my feeling and its only a feeling, the cry would be if the "shoe was on the other foot as it often has been is "well people are entitled to say where there money goes its there money".
Ether way its wrong whoever side your on and yes i agree completely all it does is stir a very volatile pot

Daily Mail wrote:The lottery system, funded by private philanthropists, will see the no-strings-attached checks go to households with an annual income of less than $59,000 if they have at least one child. The other half of the $500 checks will go to those earning under $30,000.

  A private citizen can give away his or her money whatever way s/he wants.  Most of the time we see people giving their money to their own children via a Last Will and Testament…nobody complains about that.  That seems to be more than racially motivated…it’s ovarian motivated.

The underlying article is blocked for me so it is unclear to me how the program excludes whites.  But it seems to be a program based in part on income and need.  It is calibrated on income, and families with at least one child have a higher ceiling.

I guess if a private person wanted to specify whites or blacks in his or her Will, a court of law would enforce it.  The fact that this provision confers a benefit, rather than a burden, might be taken into consideration.  A court might be more generous in that situation.  We see grants for women-owned businesses; does that discriminate against men?  We have a whole Small Business Administration federal office; does that discriminate against big businesses?  If we want to donate to the National Park Service, aren't we taking money from the Urban League?

It's a free country.

Ben wrote:Uh-oh. He/she needs to FIX IT!

Libby Schaaf is a lifetime resident of the City of Oakland.  She is quite attractive...and quite white.  She is a strong personality, and doesn't fook around.  There are a lot of very nice sections of Oakland; the Piedmont area is the Beverly Hills of the east bay.  She might be from there, I don't know.

She is extremely popular. During her tenure, Oakland has undergone an economic revitalization and building boom, as well as cut gun violence in half. Her innovative public-private partnerships Keep Oakland Housed and Cabin Communities are credited with preventing 1,800 families a year from losing their housing, while resolving some of Oakland’s most unsafe street encampments. She created Oakland’s first Department of Transportation, whose equity-based paving plan is the first of its kind in the nation and will make previously underserved neighborhoods safer, while addressing the city’s decades-old infrastructure backlog. She has launched the Oakland Promise, a bold cradle-to-career initiative to send more low-income Oakland kids to college.

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed her to California’s first Council of Regional Homeless Advisors. She's quite a responsible mayor, who is in tune with her city and her duties.

I'll bet poor Asians got nothing too.

They are the wrong kind of minority, until they are useful pawns.

Korben wrote:Obviously this is not right

BUT

I cant stop thinking when the shoes on the "other foot" how big a story it becomes and the outrage is generates when its white people discriminated against  

It's just another form of affirmative action. Why would you have an issue with it?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:Obviously this is not right

BUT

I cant stop thinking when the shoes on the "other foot" how big a story it becomes and the outrage is generates when its white people discriminated against  

It's just another form of affirmative action.  Why would you have an issue with it?

I don't like discrimination of any kind regardless of race,gender or disability.
Affirmative action is addressing discrimination that exists not creating it

Korben wrote:

Didgee wrote:This is simple going to be norm in the US where states are captured by Critical race theory

It shows that CRT is racist in thinking and fails to learn from the history of racism, by making the same mistakes all over again

The point is, if the shoe was on the other foot, this would be on every single media front page

To be honest Didgee i am not sure it would ,America has a long history of segregationist policies, especially in the south my feeling and its only a feeling, the cry would be if the "shoe was on the other foot as it often has been is "well people are entitled to say where there money goes its there money".
Ether way its wrong whoever side your on and yes i agree completely all it does is stir a very volatile pot

I am sure some in the south would argue for that to happen. Also many of the left media like CNN, Vox etc would be all over this if on the other shoe Korben, but I agree its always wrong no matter who is doing this

To racialize a poverty issue and only seek to help some based on their race, is blatant racism

The issue I have is where this belief system is stemming from:

Critical race theory. It seeks to rightly combat white supremacy, but ends up being as extreme and as hateful

Like you say we are just seeing more and more people swinging to extremes on both sides and I believe its going to get very ugly within the next decade

Of course I hope I am wrong and that liberal sense will take hold again by the majority

We all want to combat racism, but CRT is terrible at combating this

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/reasons-critical-race-theory-terrible-dealing-racism/

No one complained when Fred Trump gave his own money to people of his own choice.  It's a free country.  It's not even extremism.  The unhindered right to dispose of one's private property has been well established for centuries.  There is no such thing as 'wrongful charity'.

Move on...  

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's just another form of affirmative action.  Why would you have an issue with it?

I don't like discrimination of any kind regardless of race,gender or disability.
Affirmative action is addressing discrimination that exists not creating it

Addressing it in ways like this. It's very nature requires treating people differently. It's current discrimination to cure past discrimination.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
I don't like discrimination of any kind regardless of race,gender or disability.
Affirmative action is addressing discrimination that exists not creating it

Addressing it in ways like this. It's very nature requires treating people differently. It's current discrimination to cure past discrimination.

Like I said I don't like discrimination of any kind and its a complicated issue.

on one hand it can be seen less as "discrimination" more "reparation" the fact it is reparations for historical wrongs is irrelevant that wrong exists

its like say
A guy, murders somebody and some 30-40-50 years later that crime is discovered,But in the time since the murder this person did many many good things, saved many lifes,fed the hungry and homed the homeless ect ect    

does that wipe out his culpability for the murder ?should he not pay for that murder with imprisonment ?

when you look back in history you can find many examples of whites being given something blacks or ethnic people where denied especially in America so in one way you could view it as balancing the scale.

On the other it could be viewed as  discrimination in its widest sense of the word excluding someone because of Race/sexuality/gender/disability is obviously wrong  

But as Quill points out we generally are free to do with our own money as we see fit and for what ever reason you want ,that's why old lady's bequeath vast fortunes or small ones to there cat or dog.

its a very complicated and emotional issue and why i feel unqualified in any sense to pass judgement.

This program isn't affirmative action. It's simply a gifting by some philanthropists. These philanthropists are free to place any conditions they want on their bequeaths, including that it goes to blacks. It's none of our business because it is private philanthropy.

However, neither is affirmative action any kind of discrimination. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, it is remedial. It's like, a horse in a race, which was originally made to start a furlong back; affirmative action simply places him back with the pack, where he belonged in the first place. Neither is it burdensome, as discrimination has always been. Finally, it doesn’t demand anything of anyone…discrimination inevitably targets a person, whereas affirmative action is government, or, in some cases certain universities, giving back. It's government giving, and doesn't require anything from anyone in particular.

Discrimination is inequality. In affirmative action, there is no inequality at work. It’s just making a wrong into a right.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Addressing it in ways like this. It's very nature requires treating people differently. It's current discrimination to cure past discrimination.

Like I said I don't like discrimination of any kind and its a complicated issue.

on one hand it can be seen less as "discrimination" more "reparation" the fact it is reparations for historical wrongs is irrelevant that wrong exists

its like say
A guy, murders somebody and some 30-40-50 years later that crime is discovered,But in the time since the murder this person did many many good things, saved many lifes,fed the hungry and homed the homeless ect ect    

does that wipe out his culpability for the murder ?should he not pay for that murder with imprisonment ?

when you look back in history you can find many examples of whites being given something blacks or ethnic people where denied especially in America so in one way you could view it as balancing the scale.

On the other it could be viewed as  discrimination in its widest sense of the word excluding someone because of Race/sexuality/gender/disability is obviously wrong  

But as Quill points out we generally are free to do with our own money as we see fit and for what ever reason you want ,that's why old lady's bequeath vast fortunes or small ones to there cat or dog.

its a very complicated and emotional issue and why i feel unqualified in any sense to pass judgement.

That particular guy did something wrong.

Affirmative action punishes people who didn't do anything wrong.

If my secretary were to apply to many colleges, she would have to score much higher in tests than a black person.

What did she do wrong besides be a member of an ethnicity that values education to the point that they have the highest test scores of any ethnicity,

Original Quill wrote:This program isn't affirmative action.  It's simply a gifting by some philanthropists.  These philanthropists are free to place any conditions they want on their bequeaths, including that it goes to blacks.  It's none of our business because it is private philanthropy.

However, neither is affirmative action any kind of discrimination.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, it is remedial.  It's like, a horse in a race, which was originally made to start a furlong back; affirmative action simply places him back with the pack, where he belonged in the first place.  Neither is it burdensome, as discrimination has always been.  Finally, it doesn’t demand anything of anyone…discrimination inevitably targets a person, whereas affirmative action is government, or, in some cases certain universities, giving back.    It's government giving, and doesn't require anything from anyone in particular.  

Discrimination is inequality.  In affirmative action, there is no inequality at work.  It’s just making a wrong into a right.

What did Asians do wrong?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:This program isn't affirmative action.  It's simply a gifting by some philanthropists.  These philanthropists are free to place any conditions they want on their bequeaths, including that it goes to blacks.  It's none of our business because it is private philanthropy.

However, neither is affirmative action any kind of discrimination.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, it is remedial.  It's like, a horse in a race, which was originally made to start a furlong back; affirmative action simply places him back with the pack, where he belonged in the first place.  Neither is it burdensome, as discrimination has always been.  Finally, it doesn’t demand anything of anyone…discrimination inevitably targets a person, whereas affirmative action is government, or, in some cases certain universities, giving back.    It's government giving, and doesn't require anything from anyone in particular.  

Discrimination is inequality.  In affirmative action, there is no inequality at work.  It’s just making a wrong into a right.

What did Asians do wrong?

Nothing. But you already knew that.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Like I said I don't like discrimination of any kind and its a complicated issue.

on one hand it can be seen less as "discrimination" more "reparation" the fact it is reparations for historical wrongs is irrelevant that wrong exists

its like say
A guy, murders somebody and some 30-40-50 years later that crime is discovered,But in the time since the murder this person did many many good things, saved many lifes,fed the hungry and homed the homeless ect ect    

does that wipe out his culpability for the murder ?should he not pay for that murder with imprisonment ?

when you look back in history you can find many examples of whites being given something blacks or ethnic people where denied especially in America so in one way you could view it as balancing the scale.

On the other it could be viewed as  discrimination in its widest sense of the word excluding someone because of Race/sexuality/gender/disability is obviously wrong  

But as Quill points out we generally are free to do with our own money as we see fit and for what ever reason you want ,that's why old lady's bequeath vast fortunes or small ones to there cat or dog.

its a very complicated and emotional issue and why i feel unqualified in any sense to pass judgement.

That particular guy did something wrong.  

Affirmative action punishes people who didn't do anything wrong.  

If my secretary were to apply to many colleges, she would have to score much higher in tests than a black person.  

What did she do wrong besides be a member of an ethnicity that values education to the point that they have the highest test scores of any ethnicity,

So slavery wasn't wrong,so denying blacks and ethnic minority equal justice and opportunity wasn't wrong....

ok got it

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That particular guy did something wrong.  

Affirmative action punishes people who didn't do anything wrong.  

If my secretary were to apply to many colleges, she would have to score much higher in tests than a black person.  

What did she do wrong besides be a member of an ethnicity that values education to the point that they have the highest test scores of any ethnicity,

So slavery wasn't wrong,so denying blacks and ethnic minority equal justice and opportunity wasn't wrong....

ok got it  

What did she do wrong?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
So slavery wasn't wrong,so denying blacks and ethnic minority equal justice and opportunity wasn't wrong....

ok got it  

What did she do wrong?

Eh?? what did she do wrong? we are talking about a gifting by some philanthropists with conditions of eligibility she (if you mean the mayor) is following those conditions i would say she is doing nothing wrong
The motives of the philanthropists conditions seems to be based "on the face of it" the past exclusions of ethnic minoritys

Also you say "people who didn't do anything wrong"

say a bank robber steals a load on money and i mean a lot and his family who didn't do anything wrong benefit from that theft .with expensive houses clothes cars ect
should they get to keep all that ie the proceeds of crime

don't know about America but we have laws that says that's not OK

Maddog wrote:If my secretary were to apply to many colleges, she would have to score much higher in tests than a black person.

Nonsense. That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, brought up to perpetuate slavery and disenfranchisement. Affirmative action has no negative consequences...it confers benefits, not burdens.

Indeed, there might even be support for Asians, who after all have suffered discrimination in the past...and present.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What did she do wrong?

Eh?? what did she do wrong? we are talking about a gifting by some philanthropists with conditions of eligibility she (if you mean the mayor) is following those conditions i would say she is doing nothing wrong
The motives of the philanthropists conditions seems to be based "on the face of it" the past exclusions of ethnic minoritys  

Gi back and re read it. I'm talking about my secretary.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:If my secretary were to apply to many colleges, she would have to score much higher in tests than a black person.  

Nonsense.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, brought up to perpetuate slavery and disenfranchisement.  Affirmative action has no negative consequences...it confers benefits, not burdens.

Indeed, there might even be support for Asians, who after all have suffered discrimination in the past...and present.

Asians are penalized and you know that.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Eh?? what did she do wrong? we are talking about a gifting by some philanthropists with conditions of eligibility she (if you mean the mayor) is following those conditions i would say she is doing nothing wrong
The motives of the philanthropists conditions seems to be based "on the face of it" the past exclusions of ethnic minoritys  

Gi back and re read it. I'm talking about my secretary.  

Your making a hypothetical argument or straw man argument ether one or both i haven't decided

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Gi back and re read it. I'm talking about my secretary.  

Your making a hypothetical argument or straw man argument ether one or both i haven't decided

Its neither.

Asians must score higher on tests than black people..


Do you think that is fair considering they are both minorities?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Your making a hypothetical argument or straw man argument ether one or both i haven't decided

Its neither.

Asians must score higher on tests than black people..


Do you think that is fair considering they are both minorities?

https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2017/08/07/look-data-and-arguments-about-asian-americans-and-admissions-elite

"The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."



Thanks. Not that I needed it, I already know this stuff.

I'll ask you again.

Are Asians treated fairly in this system.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, brought up to perpetuate slavery and disenfranchisement.  Affirmative action has no negative consequences...it confers benefits, not burdens.

Indeed, there might even be support for Asians, who after all have suffered discrimination in the past...and present.

Asians are penalized and you know that.  

Asians have recently received southern-type physical attacks, out of the misguided RW lie that since the pandemic was first detected in Asia, thus Asians caused it.

As far as affirmative action is concerned, it harms no one. It is remedial, and it doesn't burden, but benefits. It does not debit any other student's ability to enter, but adds to the whole. That is one of those Jim Crow Myths that RW'ers so favor these days.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, brought up to perpetuate slavery and disenfranchisement.  Affirmative action has no negative consequences...it confers benefits, not burdens.

Indeed, there might even be support for Asians, who after all have suffered discrimination in the past...and present.

Asians are penalized and you know that.  

No one is penalized. Affirmative action is remedial, and is accomplished by benefits, not burdens.

Soz Red...it's a Jim Crow Myth.

Maddog wrote:I'll ask you again.

Are Asians treated fairly in this system.

Me > well as the link states there is no consensus on what data would actually demonstrate illegal discrimination.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Asians are penalized and you know that.  

No one is penalized.  Affirmative action is remedial, and is accomplished by benefits, not burdens.

Soz Red...it's a Jim Crow Myth.  

The people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized.

All for being the wrong minority.

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:I'll ask you again.

Are Asians treated fairly in this system.

Me > well as the link states  there is no consensus on what data would actually demonstrate illegal discrimination.

Legal.

Slavery was fucking legal.

What about ethical.

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Me > well as the link states  there is no consensus on what data would actually demonstrate illegal discrimination.

Legal.  

Slavery was fucking legal.

What about ethical.

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance?

Oh so it was legal to oppress people that make it right ?

cool perhaps the monarchy should claim Prima nocta the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.after all it "was legal"

what a silly argument ...it was legal ......

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Legal.  

Slavery was fucking legal.

What about ethical.

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance?

Oh so it was legal to oppress people that make it right ?

cool perhaps the monarchy should claim Prima nocta the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.after all it "was legal"

what a silly argument ...it was legal ......

No, treating people differently based on race is always wrong.

Why do you support doing it?

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Legal.  

Slavery was fucking legal.

What about ethical.

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance?

Oh so it was legal to oppress people that make it right ?

cool perhaps the monarchy should claim Prima nocta the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.after all it "was legal"

what a silly argument ...it was legal ......

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Oh so it was legal to oppress people that make it right ?

cool perhaps the monarchy should claim Prima nocta the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.after all it "was legal"

what a silly argument ...it was legal ......

No, treating people differently based on race is always wrong.  

Why do you support doing it?

putting words in my mouth is a pretty low tactic when your argument is failing, reparations is not discrimination but putting balance back, why are you against it ,the whole legal system is about making somebody whole after a injustice was done that's not discrimination

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, treating people differently based on race is always wrong.  

Why do you support doing it?

putting words in my mouth is a pretty low tactic when your argument is failing, reparations is not discrimination but putting balance back, why are you against it ,the whole legal system is about making somebody whole after a injustice was done that's not discrimination

Then don't do it me.

I'll treat you, and anyone else in a manner similar to how they treat me.

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Oh so it was legal to oppress people that make it right ?

cool perhaps the monarchy should claim Prima nocta the semi-historical legal right of a monarch to have sex with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.after all it "was legal"

what a silly argument ...it was legal ......

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

according to the piece i cited they is no consensus that that is the case did you read it ?

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
putting words in my mouth is a pretty low tactic when your argument is failing, reparations is not discrimination but putting balance back, why are you against it ,the whole legal system is about making somebody whole after a injustice was done that's not discrimination

Then don't do it me.  

I'll treat you, and anyone else in a manner similar to how they treat me.  

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

where did i put words in your mouth you said slavery was legal as a justification

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No one is penalized. Affirmative action is remedial, and is accomplished by benefits, not burdens.

Soz Red...it's a Jim Crow Myth.

The people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized.

All for being the wrong minority.

No, they're not. That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, perpetuated by southerners.

Jim Crow looks at all enrollment as a zero-sum game, taking all admissions as a base, and calculating all advantages to one race, as detractions to another race. You see this in your reasoning: "...people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized."

You don't get the concept of additive benefits. Your reasoning is zero-sum. You're just aggregating all students accepted, instead of setting aside the benefits, and then counting the advantages granted to one, to be disadvantages to the other. Additive benefits are in addition to the aggregate, not to be detracted as penalties.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized.  

All for being the wrong minority.  

No, they're not.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, perpetuated by southerners.

Jim Crow looks at all enrollment as a zero-sum game, taking all admissions as a base, and calculating all advantages to one race, as detractions to another race.  You see this in your reasoning: "...people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized."  

You don't get the concept of additive benefits.  Your reasoning is zero-sum.  You're just aggregating all students accepted, instead of setting aside the benefits, and then counting the advantages granted to one, to be disadvantages to the other.  Additive benefits are in addition to the aggregate, not to be detracted as penalties.

He says it much better than me

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
putting words in my mouth is a pretty low tactic when your argument is failing, reparations is not discrimination but putting balance back, why are you against it ,the whole legal system is about making somebody whole after a injustice was done that's not discrimination

Then don't do it me.  

I'll treat you, and anyone else in a manner similar to how they treat me.  

Here's that southern anger and propensity to violence, creeping out. Frame yourself as a victim, and start a fight!

Is that the way you treated your ex? Shame!

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

according to the piece i cited they is no consensus that that is the case did you read it ?

Yes, I quoted the part that said they did.

Is that fair to you?

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think Asians should need higher test scores for acceptance

according to the piece i cited they is no consensus that that is the case did you read it ?

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized.  

All for being the wrong minority.  

No, they're not.  That's one of those Jim Crow Myths, perpetuated by southerners.

Jim Crow looks at all enrollment as a zero-sum game, taking all admissions as a base, and calculating all advantages to one race, as detractions to another race.  You see this in your reasoning: "...people not accepted that have higher scores than those not accepted are penalized."  

You don't get the concept of additive benefits.  Your reasoning is zero-sum.  You're just aggregating all students accepted, instead of setting aside the benefits, and then counting the advantages granted to one, to be disadvantages to the other.  Additive benefits are in addition to the aggregate, not to be detracted as penalties.

The study found that, without affirmative action, the acceptance rate for African-American candidates at elite colleges would be likely to fall by nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants probably would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent.

White applicants would have seen little change in this analysis. Their admission rate would rise slightly, to 24.3 percent, from 23.8 percent.

The big gains would be for Asian applicants. Their admission rate in a race-neutral system would go to 23.4 percent, from 17.6 percent. And their share of a class of admitted students would rise to 31.5 percent, from 23.7 percent."

Could someone explain how the mayor is involved in the distribution of privately-raised funds? Because that's the part I don't really get.

If the funds are from private donors they can be spent on anything legal, but in that case, it doesn't really make sense to me to have a government official involved in the distribution of the funds.