Looks like a duck . . .

[Gold Winger 9]

This looks pretty discriminatory to me . . .http://www.cmh.pitt.edu/hbfp.asp

 

Run by the University of Pittsburgh, a state supported university, as part of their Graduate School of Public Health, in university buildings with university resources.

 

Is there a Center for White Folks Health? Nope. Probably never will be.

 

Can I take part in any of their programs? Nope. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Perhaps you could explain how a program created through a grant from a private foundation is illegal? Or maybe you're saying it's a duck?

 

I'd say it's just another red herring. When I first pointed out on scouter.com that public schools couldn't charter discriminatory BSA units, the red herrings came flying. Oh noes! People kept trying to drag up other things that they insisted were either illegal discrimination, that somehow I was personally obligated to go after, or (with no hint of irony) the exact opposite effect, to show that public schools somehow can discriminate against atheists and everything is A-OK.

 

Your post is clearly meant only to bait me. It has nothing to do with scouting.

 

However, whenever I see supposedly "good" scouts like yourself trying this kind of thing, it only confirms my original claim that public schools have no business sponsoring a group that foments such attitudes towards atheists.

[eolesen 10]

Nice dodge, but the point is still valid, Merlyn.

 

First, a correction... Pitt is a private university, so they're not state supported as GW indicated above, but they and the program still receiving federal funding via the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which falls under Dept. of Health & Human Services, a cabinet level agency.

 

They also are tied in with the Allegheny County Health Department, which is a local governmental agency.

 

So, this is a valid example of tax dollars being used for a program which provides great benefits for the community as a whole, but still discriminates against a segment of the population.

 

And that's OK, because the benefits to the community as a whole outweigh the fact that white people at all income levels won't necessarily benefit from the research being done or the care being given to minorities.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Funny, they say they were created by a grant from the R.K. Mellon foundation, a private foundation. I guess they got themselves wrong, eh?

[evmori 11]

Pitt is a private university

 

Actually the University of Pittsburgh is a public university.

[eolesen 10]

That was their seed money, but go look for yourself at http://www.cmh.pitt.edu/fundingpartners.asp

 

How much do they receive? Got me. NCMHD's total budget was less than $200M, but I don't think the level of funds received is relevant -- the fact is that they're receiving federal (and municipal) support for activities which exclude some taxpayers.

 

 

Ed, I stand corrected. Pitt is a state university... they're not part of the U of P or Penn State system, which is my mistake.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[Lisabob 13]

I only have time for a quick comment here but historically, the reason for the existence of programs like the one in question has been that minorities (and women, and children) have been vastly under-studied in medical research, and consequently it has been found in the last 10 years or so that the "typical" effects of drugs & treatments that have only been studied on adult white males are not necessarily applicable to other groups. In short, there is some serious catch-up research to be done. However, the idea that doing such research now discriminates against majority whites is, I find, ludicrous. There has never been, and is not now, a paucity of funded research that includes that group.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The government excludes taxpayers all the time; you have to determine if it's legal.

 

In past posts, I actually cited e.g. Minnesota state law which stated no public school could exclude any student from any of the school's programs on the basis of religion or creed (363.13 if I remember the statute correctly). A BSA unit that excluded atheists that was sponsored by a public educational institution would be in violation of that law.

 

Now, all any of you need to do is show how this particular program is in violation of the law. Good luck with that. There are plenty of medical conditions that are related to race or gender, but perhaps none of you are aware of that.

 

Besides, what does this have to do with scouting? Oh, nothing, except, like I said, it's a red herring.

[eolesen 10]

Lisa, I agree with why the research is needed, but it's no less ludicrous of an argument than it is to say that the City of Philadelphia is subsidizing the BSA by letting them use a building that BSA built and maintains without using a single dollar of taxpayer funds.

 

Personally, I thing it is ludicrous to argue about funding faith based or even race based organizations when you consider the overall good they provide for the community as a whole.

[scoutmomma 10]

Pitt -- the University of Pittsburgh -- is not a public university. It is a state-related institution, one of four in Pennsylvania -- the other three being Pennsylvania State University, Temple University and Lincoln University -- as opposed to the 14 state-owned institutions of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, or private institutions such as the University of Pennsylvania. State-related institutions are privately chartered but receive some state funding, which has been dropping steadily over the years -- 25 years ago, it was around 32%. Ten years ago, it was less than 18%. I don't know what it is today, but am guessing it's probably under 15% by now.

Scoutmomma

[Gold Winger 9]

"So, this is a valid example of tax dollars being used for a program which provides great benefits for the community as a whole, but still discriminates against a segment of the population."

 

And discriminates a LARGE segment of the population.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Of the three research projects currently being done by the Center for Minority Health, only one is restricted to a single racial group.

 

As for the other two - the Vitamin D study is open to any child 6 to 12 years old and the other, the Pittsburgh Influenza Prevention Project is open to any child as well. The brochure (you can download it) for the Pittsburgh Influenze Prevention Project features three children. One black boy, one red-headed white boy and one white or very (and I mean very)light skinned hispanic girl.

 

Looks like whites are more than welcome to take part in their programs. And I'm sure you would be more than welcome to attend any of their symposiums.

 

So much for being discriminatory. Lesson to be learned, be cautious of judging an organization by it's name. In their discussion of their history, they state pretty clearly that they are involved with "addressing health issues among ethnic, racial AND OTHER vulnerable and underserved populations". Other vulnerable and underserved populations is a pretty broad term and could encompass poor white children, single white mothers, etc. Then there's that word "ethnic". That could just as easily mean Polish or Ukranian speaking immigrants (also "white") as it could mean Asian or Hispanic.

 

Anyone else want any pickled red herring??

 

Calico

[Gold Winger 9]

"The mission of the Center for Minority Health (CMH) is to improve the health and wellbeing of racial and ethnic minority populations by eliminating health disparities as defined in Healthy People 2010."

 

That's right from their website. There's no government checkbox for Polish, Irish, Jewish, etc.. Only white (non-hispanic).

[LongHaul 10]

How about those of us in the pushing 60 crowd? Can't get into the Vitamin study or the Influenza research, not being black that makes me 0 for 3. Sure looks like discrimination to me

 LH

[Lisabob 13]

Folks, I do fear some people here are missing out on a major requirement of scientific research, and that is that one ought to be controlling for all sorts of factors extraneous to the ones that the researcher is actually trying to study. For example, if I wanted to know the relative effectiveness of a particular medication for black middle aged women, I'd do my very best to only include black, middle aged, women in my study! Is that "discrimination?" Not in the way the word is generally used. Rather, this is the way good science gets done. You have to carefully tailor your sample group to match the population you are truly interested in learning about.

 

It should not be required or expected that every researcher study every possible group of people in order to avoid these rather spurious claims of favoritism - aside from reducing the ability of researchers to specialize and become true experts, such an expectation is just not practical.

 

Now, if the government were refusing to fund any studies that looked into the health concerns of white, middle aged men, then GW, you might have a point. As it is, that is so definitively NOT the case, that your argument does not hold up to scrutiny, I'm sorry.