No one is denying that. But why should that affect what a man chooses to do with his own money?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
White Girls Only
- Thread starter Cheri_N
- Start date
No one is denying that. But why should that affect what a man chooses to do with his own money?
Do you mind? We're in the middle of a thread derail here. Sheesh...
The straight answer is that it isn't 1941 any more, so this sort of thing is worth a review. While you tamper with the wishes of the deceased at your eternal peril, just because someone is dead doesn't mean his ideas are untouchable.
Why not? If my will is that I be cremated, is someone allowed to change my mind after I'm dead? No, they arent. This is no different.
The question is academic anyway - if he was alive today and knew of the realities of our situation, who knows what he would have done? Maybe he would have spent it on cocaine instead. Saying "We know better" is completely false and a complete lie. Its an insult.
If such a thing were passed, who in their right mind would leave money to a charitable cause like this? What if I left a charity to help Xhosa kids with their education, but then the government changed and the new government decided Xhosas didnt need any help (even if some actually did).
Yes, I know. But what if your will said that your estate should be used to fund the KKK or the Black Panthers? Would that always be okay?
I just said its worth a review. I didn't say it should be overturned.
If UKZN doesn't want this money, they don't have to accept it.
I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
They can always use it for what it was intended. Train all the white students from the white Squatter camps. There are enough other funds allowing Black students ONLY
As long as they are legal entities and not criminal organisations, yes it would always be fine. It is a legal right to hold a point of view, and to act accordingly. Any point of view, even an unpopular one (well, today) like his should be respected. It is HIS money after all, not the university's, not the government's.
Your last line of course has the answer - UKZN can choose not to accept it. But they want to have their cake and eat it - they want the money, but they want to dictate the terms. Doesnt work that way, at least it shouldnt.
MyWorld
Executive Member
Are they allowed by law to exist? Not here but in the States, yes, then yes it should be honored.
Jola
Honorary Master
+1
UKZN should take the moral route and turn the money down.
They are acting unethically by trying to change the terms of somebody last wishes.
davemc
Executive Member
But then they would be hurting students.
You do know affirmative action exists elsewhere. Women are common recipients.
When was this the case?
Exactly. So they should respect the old man's wishes and allow white girls to benefit.
. It is for girls only.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
What's wrong with allowing white girls to benefit? Is there something wrong with them that they should be disallowed from it? Are we trying to exclude them from benefits? Is there something wrong with the man who set up the benefit?
Lightscribe
Banned
Where do you draw the line?
Do we now also stop all the "black only" organisations, funds, trusts, business groups?
No. The recipients remain as wished. Uplift the poorest of those specified.
Do we now also stop all the "black only" organisations, funds, trusts, business groups?
No. The recipients remain as wished. Uplift the poorest of those specified.
This scholarship was introduced to reset wrongs of the past. If anything, our government should recognise this as a positive more than anything else. For them to insititute proceedings against the trustees because of its exclusionary policy is outrageous considering the money is A) private, and B) addressing a previously disadvantaged community. Now I'm harping on about previously disadvantaged here because for the government to claim that these people are no longer disadvantaged, would set a precedent for BEE/AA as they would have to prove at what point these groups of individuals no longer became disadvantaged and the scholarship became exclusionary based on race alone. The same principle applies to BEE/AA and it would therefore require public disclosure as to what point a previously oppressed race in SA is considered to be on equal footing. I think any lawyer worth their salt should be pointing out this public disclosure aspect of the case which in all likelihood, is not in the interests of the ruling elite, unless they finally commit to an end date to BEE/AA which is unlikely.
And before you tell me that the two are not comparable, they most certainly are and data can be extrapolated from a study of this kind.
My major concern is the precedent set here if the court rules against the scholarship. No court should have any say on who you can and cannot bequeth your estate to. It is an individual's private assets, not a pool of redistribution wealth. The only government organisation who can touch my cash is the taxman, and even that I have a slight issue with too.
If the trustees wish to resolve this, they should merely change the wording of the requirements. Much like the Nelson Mandela Scholarship excludes white males from being a beneficiary based on semantics (previously disadvantaged), the trustees should be able to come up with a suitable semantic change too. Then the argument can be put forward if it comes up again, that an effort has already been made to change the requirements and a direct comparison can be made with the term "previously disadvantaged" which currently, I don't think can be done easily...
And before you tell me that the two are not comparable, they most certainly are and data can be extrapolated from a study of this kind.
My major concern is the precedent set here if the court rules against the scholarship. No court should have any say on who you can and cannot bequeth your estate to. It is an individual's private assets, not a pool of redistribution wealth. The only government organisation who can touch my cash is the taxman, and even that I have a slight issue with too.
If the trustees wish to resolve this, they should merely change the wording of the requirements. Much like the Nelson Mandela Scholarship excludes white males from being a beneficiary based on semantics (previously disadvantaged), the trustees should be able to come up with a suitable semantic change too. Then the argument can be put forward if it comes up again, that an effort has already been made to change the requirements and a direct comparison can be made with the term "previously disadvantaged" which currently, I don't think can be done easily...
The scariest part of this being upheld is that I think the constitution would need to be ammended to allow the courts to over-rule and intervene in private trusts. Of course they would have to stipulate under what circumstances the court could intervene, but where does on draw the line here? Think of the repercussions. One cannot base it on race alone and would have to extend to all basic human rights as stipulated by our constitution. It boils down to the courts being able to dictate ones presonal prejudices, or at the very least it would mean that ones motivations for bequeathing ones assets are brought into question upon death. This alone is contradictory in terms of the constitution as I understand it, because my right to be prejudiced (against anything) is protected. Incitement based on this prejudice is illegal and I agree with that, but is giving money away based on prejudice (which is actually not the case here but forms a part of the ruling) really considered incitement of anything? I think not.
And to those spouting that this has nothing to do with government, please broaden your horizons for a second before stating so. The repercussions are very much political, in every way and political parties and affiilations will be involved in this to some degree. To think they're not is rather narrow-minded...
Not a chance of this happening. You need to better understand what a trust is - it is a separate legal entity run by a board of trustees who have to act in a manner that looks after the trust and its beneficiaries' best interests. Not even liquidating the trust would have the desired effect you're thinking of, and even liquidating a trust with positive cash flow and assets is not in the trust's best interests, so the board would not do so - it's quite a process to do so in any case as the liquidators are supposed to be separate. The alternative to this is trying to prove that the old bugger wasn't in a sound state of mind when he wrote his will or set up this trust fund. Not going to happen 70 years after the fact.
It reminds me of the First National Bank debacle which effectively changed property trust laws in SA. FNB had a representative on the board of trustees and IIRC the liquidators of the trust were a division of FNB - they valued the trust's assets at a substantial discount to fair value. They then placed no reserve on the assets when they went up for auction and FNB subsequently bought the assets on the cheap with nobody else bidding (because they didn't advertise the auction), and then went on to develop properties on the land they'd bought. They sold this off for millions in profit. Now the trust itself still had creditors to pay and the beneficiaries were lumped with the debt - so those who the cash was intended for landed up with substantial debt while FNB pocketed a few bar on the sly. They went on to sue FNB and eventually won but it does show how little say a beneficiary of a trust has - the board has the say in all matters.
So unless in this case the grandson is a member of the board of trustees, he has nothing to say about what happens...
Last edited:
I agree with you that it is well worth a review, however such a review should be at the discretion of the board of trustees and not at the demand of politicians. For politicians to involve themselves in the running of a private trust is bordering on a gross invasion of ones rights.
Although I suppose the opposite could be argued, in that the trust is a legal entity in the eyes of the law and in being afforded this right, must abide by the constitution which governs against discriminatory practices. It's a sticky situation, especially considering my previous post. And the tax issue as argued by kosmik doesn't apply, because if the trust is still investing disposable assets, then they're still paying tax on dividends and growth...
Last edited:
Funding terrorist organisations would be against existing laws in the first place. What this discussion is about is instituting a similar law to dictate beneficiaries based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc...
Nom Chompsky
High Tory
Wasn't there a case a year or two ago - but involving UCT - where they did manage to change about who was eligible for the scholarship?