Which sounds completely impossible in practice. Especially if they specify that the money is to help "poor black neighborhoods", rather than simply "poor neighborhoods".
That's already a political statement, right there.
There's a lot of poor white neighborhoods too, whose kids have little hope of getting out. There's no special scholarships or funds for them, because they're white. No chance of going to college unless they go the military route. Some rural areas follow that same "crabs in a pot" thing where they go after someone they think is getting above their station by bettering themselves, which doesn't help anyone.
Which sounds completely impossible in practice. Especially if they specify that the money is to help "poor black neighborhoods", rather than simply "poor neighborhoods".
That's already a political statement, right there.
There's a lot of poor white neighborhoods too, whose kids have little hope of getting out. There's no special scholarships or funds for them, because they're white. No chance of going to college unless they go the military route. Some rural areas follow that same "crabs in a pot" thing where they go after someone they think is getting above their station by bettering themselves, which doesn't help anyone.
True. We need to help both poor blacks and the white sub urban people.
Pepsico announced that African Americans will make up 30% of their upper management team.
13% of population will make up 30%.
Let that sink in.
It would be logical to have 13% for 13% of the population. Anything else is simply trying to milk the movement.
Current make up of management is 13%