 |
 |
When Sally Keith considered abstinence a requirement for a possible $5,000 four-year scholarship, people reacted with claims that the criteria were discriminatory and dictated morality. While she changed the requirements, this reaction remains illogical and immature.
Chastity. The word is almost as taboo as masturbation. While the latter can stop dinner conversations in a heartbeat, the former has already infuriated many university students and officials. They have angrily reacted to Sally Keith's scholarship, a donation offered to the UA Foundation, which previously required applicants to remain abstinent during their college education.
Keith changed the criteria - future applicants would have to be single Native American women, without children, who abstain from pregnancy throughout their four years at the university. Her original request, however, along with the new criteria, are perfectly valid.
Either way, the criteria's validity derives from the simple concept of a contract. Anyone who has accepted a job, a scholarship or any responsibility understands the idea of give-and-take.
Apparently, once the word "chastity" enters the equation, all bets are off. Even though Keith can't bully anyone into applying, many UA faculty and students have said the scholarship is a bad idea.
Yet, these are the same people who claim the 90-year-old Keith is "dictating morals." The woman offers $5,000 annual scholarships to, as well as a $250,000 endowment to fund it when she dies, and the UA dictates her morality as wrong.
Hopefully, it was not Keith's intent to single out Native American women as though they are more promiscuous than women of other races. If so, it's a frightening thing. But that does not seem to be her intention.
She told the Arizona Daily Star that she wanted to establish a scholarship for Native Americans because "... I've always been interested in Indians because I think Americans will never pay their debt to what they did with the Indians."
Besides, these are private funds. These are not taxpayers' dollars at work. Yet, students claim "it isn't right" for her to spend these dollars as she wishes.
But Keith's stipulations aren't any more demanding than those of many other scholarships. Take one Harvard University scholarship which mandates that its recipient "has no fun." Yes, the student must actually work to not enjoy him or herself during college under threat of losing funding. Still think abstinence is asking too much?
Keith's former and present requests are fair stipulations. Meanwhile, there are students who desperately need these funds. If the scholarship has no takers, then changes can be made. Otherwise, let those dollars do some good. If you still feel the scholarship is "immoral," "discriminatory" or just plain "not right," then don't apply, because it's definitely not right for you.
Editoral Staff
|
|
|