Baha'i/Ananda Marga

Greetings, greetings! :)

Vaj, in addition to what we've said above, not only are Baha'is working the world over for the equality of women and their advancement, but the Baha'i International Community is a formal member of UNIFEM, the UN agency for women's development and equality, and indeed, last fall was chairing UNIFEM! :)

(We're also in ECOSOC, UNICEF, and UNEP (the environmental agency), to name a few. . . .)

Best,

Bruce
 
Namaste all,


crikey! just a few responses :)

lots of information is being transmitted so please pardon me if i seem to be overlooking something that was mentioned.

barefootgal, well.. i suppose that you can say that and that may work for some.. but it doesn't work for me, sorry. i suppose that i should say that if a particular tradition places restrictions on people i have no real issue with that within the context of that tradition. if women are not allowed to be elected to the UHJ, so be it. i am a curious individual and always find the reasonings for such things to be fascinating.


arthra, i have no desire to have you discuss administrative issues that are particular to your faith, especially if you are prevented from doing so! i do find it interesting that in the Baha'i political system the individual is virtually worthless whilst the group is invested with the power. do you think something like that would be able to work in a large, organized state?

BruceDLimber, i think that you touch on it pretty well with this statement: "It would be misleading to dismiss this as mere tyranny of the majority, however."

as i'm sure you know, the United States government was designed to protect the rights of the invidual rather than the majority, which has thus far, seemed to work out ok. whilst the US isn't a complete democracy (a consitutional republic) would you expect that a nation with a historical perspective of promoting individual rights would be receptive to a political system wherein the individual wasn't considered to be all that important?



as a general follow up to that question, in a large community of Baha'i, how is the adherent supposed to know whom all the canditates that stand for election are? i suppose i'm having some difficult grasping the nature of the political system that the Baha'is use in their own affairs. understanding this would allow me, i beleive, to have a greater understanding of the character of a united world in the Baha'i faith.

now.. in regards to the UHJ being the ultimate authority... this is something that i found interesting:

"There being no successor to Shoghi Effendi as Guardian of the Cause of God, the Universal House of Justice is the Head of the Faith and its supreme institution, to which all must turn, and on it rests the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the unity and progress of the Cause of God. Further, there devolve upon it the duties of directing and coordinating the work of the Hands of the Cause, of ensuring the continuing discharge of the functions of protection and propagation vested in that institution, and of providing for the receipt and disbursement of the Huqúqu'lláh."

this seems to support my assertion that the UHJ is the ultimate authority of the Baha'i on this plane of existence...
 
Last edited:
Vajradhara said:
as a general follow up to that question, in a large community of Baha'i, how is the adherent supposed to know whom all the canditates that stand for election are? i suppose i'm having some difficult grasping the nature of the political system that the Baha'is use in their own affairs. understanding this would allow me, i beleive, to have a greater understanding of the character of a united world in the Baha'i faith.
Namaste Vajra,

All adult (21+) Baha'i's are eligible to be elected. It is our responsibility to get to know everyone, as many as possible. So in a community with 1000 adult Baha'i's, all 1000 are eligible to serve on the Assembly. If we only know 50 of them, we will vote for the 9 of those 50 that we feel will best serve the Faith.

Loving Greetings, Harmony
 
Vajradhara said:
barefootgal, well.. i suppose that you can say that and that may work for some.. but it doesn't work for me, sorry. i suppose that i should say that if a particular tradition places restrictions on people i have no real issue with that within the context of that tradition. if women are not allowed to be elected to the UHJ, so be it. i am a curious individual and always find the reasonings for such things to be fascinating.

As I've stated, however, no "reasonings" for this limitation were given, so we are just stuck here when it comes to trying to explore "why?" We can only come up with speculations of our own until such time that "the reason will become apparent" -- which 'Abdu'l-Baha said would happen one day. Perhaps the true reason is one we would, at this stage in our development, find objectionable -- but 500 years from now, conditions in the world will have changed to the degree that all will at that time find it utterly obvious that this is an absolute neccessity.

I take a lesson from a story which may be familiar to you: of the villagers who were told by their wiseman not to graze their goats on the hillside. Long after the wiseman is dead, and respect for him has faded and been forgotten, a drought occurs, and the desperate villagers decide that there is no reason, that they can see, not to let the goats roam the hillside. The grazing, of course, quickly decimates the delicate ecosystem of the hills, and without the stabilizing roots of its sparse vegetation there is nothing to hold the thin soil. When the rains finally do come, the entire hillside becomes unstable and the village is destroyed in a devastating mudslide.

So, do we defy an exhortation that we do not understand until such time as we can understand it? Or do we follow the exhortation of one whose wisdom we trust, study and question and increase our knowledge until we understand it? Baha'is are bidden to do the latter, as this, at the very least, will prevent disunity, conflict and strife -- and these will be very much more harmful to our community than even doing the "wrong" thing sometimes will be.

This relates to the idea of the UHJ having "supreme" and ultimate authority -- the most important thing here is that somewhere, somehow, by some institution, a resolution be agreed upon. It may sometimes be a less than perfect resolution, it may even rarely be utterly "wrong." A bad decision will quickly become evident and can be easily corrected -- but the wounds inflicted from bitter discord may take decades to heal, and in the cases of individuals injured by invective and contention, may never fully heal.

For Baha'is, the Manifestations of God, and in our time, Baha'u'llah, is "The Divine Physician" -- prescribing what we need for our well-being and safety right now, and for the balance of the millenium. Our own sight and knowledge are limited, while that of the Divine Physician is beyond all limitation. That a certain pill is bitter to our taste does not indicate that it is bad medicine.

Yes! We are encouraged to question everything and seek the knowledge and understanding we need to know the reasons for things. But, as I understand and accept it, while we are waiting for our understanding to develop well enough to do our own doctoring, the path of wisdom is to act on the advice of our Physician.

"Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it."
-- Baha'u'llah (citing a maxim from Persian tradition, I believe)

Vajradhara said:
a political system wherein the individual wasn't considered to be all that important?

Safeguarding the rights and freedoms of individuals is one of the fundamental purposes of the Administrative Order

Vajradhara said:
this seems to support my assertion that the UHJ is the ultimate authority of the Baha'i on this plane of existence...

Yes, but we must bear in mind the fact that the institution is acting in consultation and response to the other institutions of the cause, the recommendations and requests of Baha'i communities, and is required to be mindful and responsive (tho not obedient) to even the recommendations, requests and complaints of individual believers. It's ultimate and fundamental purpose is to serve the community.

What is hard to realize as an outsider looking in is how organically inter-connected the global, national, local and individual aspects of the community are in its functioning, and how immediate and intense the flow of communication is between the "highest" and "lowest" (i hate to use those terms as they imply comparative value or importance, which is not the case in the Baha'i adminstration) levels of the administrative structure. Also hard to grasp, as herein it differs completely in character from the political systems of countries, the ecclesiastical systems of other religions, and other various organizational structures, is the concept that the Administrative System exists to serve the Baha'is, and, emphatically, not vice versa.

This is a system created for us, and run by us -- and even for individual Baha'is like myself, it takes several years of familiarity with the system and how it works to begin to fully appreciate how VERY different it is in character from the institutions we are familiar with from other walks of life, and how remarkably well it really does work.

"Justice is, in this day, bewailing its plight, and Equity groaneth beneath the yoke of oppression. The thick clouds of tyranny have darkened the face of the earth, and enveloped its peoples" ...

"How vast is the tabernacle of the Cause of God! It hath overshadowed all the peoples and kindreds of the earth, and will, ere long, gather together the whole of mankind beneath its shelter. Thy day of service is now come. ...

Thou must show forth that which will ensure the peace and the well-being of the miserable and the downtrodden. Gird up the loins of thine endeavour, that perchance thou mayest release the captive from his chains, and enable him to attain unto true liberty."

http://bahai-library.com/writings/bahaullah/tb/6.html
 
future unfoldment

I just discovered this document, and the following passages seem to relate, at least in a general way, to a number of the ideas we are exploring in this thread:


"The second fundamental principle which enables us to understand the pattern towards which Baha'u'llah wishes human society to evolve is the principle of organic growth which requires that detailed developments, and the understanding of detailed developments, become available only with the passage of time and with the help of the guidance given by that Central Authority in the Cause to whom all must turn. In this regard one can use the simile of a tree. If a farmer plants a tree, he cannot state at that moment what its exact height will be, the number of its branches or the exact time of its blossoming. he can, however, give a general impression of its size and pattern of growth and can state with confidence which fruit it will bear. The same is true of the evolution of the World Order of Baha'u'llah. For example, we find the following illuminating explanation in a letter written by Shoghi Effendi to the Baha'is in America on 23 February 1924:

And as we make an effort to demonstrate that love to the world may we also clear our minds of any lingering trace of unhappy misunderstandings that might obscure our clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this new world order, so challenging and complex, yet so consummate and wise. We are called upon by our beloved Master in His Will and Testament not only to adopt it unreservedly, but to unveil its merit to all the world. To attempt to estimate its full value, and grasp its exact significance after so short a time since its inception would be premature and presumptuous on our part. We must trust to time, and the guidance of God's Universal House of Justice, to obtain a clearer and fuller understanding of its provisions and implications. But one word of warning must be uttered in this connection. Let us be on our guard lest we measure too strictly the Divine Plan with the standard of men. I am not prepared to state that it agrees in principle or in method with the prevailing notions now uppermost in men's minds, nor that it should conform with those imperfect, precarious, and expedient measures feverishly resorted to by agitated humanity. Are we to doubt that the ways of God are not necessarily the ways of man? Is not faith but another word for implicit obedience, whole hearted allegiance, uncompromising adherence to that which we believe is the revealed +P 61 and express will of God, however perplexing it might first appear, however at variance with the shadowy views, the impotent doctrines, the crude theories, the idle imaginings, the fashionable conceptions of a transient and troublous age? If we are to falter or hesitate, if our love for Him should fail to direct us and keep us within His path, if we desert Divine and emphatic principles, what hope can we any more cherish for healing the ills and sicknesses of this world?"

http://www.bahai-library.com/uhj/theocracy.html
 
Greetings, greetings! :)

You couldn't be more wrong in thinking that "the individual is virtually worthless" in the Baha'i Faith, the more so given that we have no clergy and no hierarchy! The individual is far more important than you think, and I'm surprised this isn't clearer.

And as to "Individual Rights and Freedoms" there is a formal document from the House of Justice with this very title! You can find it on the bahai-library.org site we've mentioned. I think it might answer a lot of your concerns. And if you'd like me to post it here, just let me know! :)

You are correct that the House is the supreme authority IN THIS PLANE. But as I said, God and the Baha'i scriptures are the ultimate Baha'i authority, and the House of Justice is also subordinate here and may not alter them.

As to how we can vote for others, I would say that the theory is that you vote only for those whom you know of personally (so that you can judge and compare their qualifications). And that those considered to be the best-qualified by the most other people do indeed tend to be the ones best qualified to serve! :)

Regards,

Bruce
 
Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.


BruceDLimber said:
Greetings, greetings! :)

You couldn't be more wrong in thinking that "the individual is virtually worthless" in the Baha'i Faith, the more so given that we have no clergy and no hierarchy! The individual is far more important than you think, and I'm surprised this isn't clearer.
the reason that this seems confusing is that Arthra said this in a previous post in this thread:

"individual Baha'is that make up the Assembly count for nothing in themselves..."

which lead me to my statement.

i'll conceed that Arthra is expressing his own opinion and not official doctrine of the Baha'i faith, so it's quite possible that his experience is not the same as yours in this regard. i really cannot say.
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.



the reason that this seems confusing is that Arthra said this in a previous post in this thread:

"individual Baha'is that make up the Assembly count for nothing in themselves..."

which lead me to my statement.

i'll conceed that Arthra is expressing his own opinion and not official doctrine of the Baha'i faith, so it's quite possible that his experience is not the same as yours in this regard. i really cannot say.
Namaste Vajra,

I believe Art was just referring to the fact that individual Baha'i's have no authority by themselves, the institutions have the authority. But individuals have rights and responsibilities and can take many avenues of individual initiative. We definitely have a voice. Individuals are encouraged to do many things, but if guidance is needed we should go to an institution and ask for clarification.

Does that help?

Loving Greetings, Harmony
 
the reason that this seems confusing is that Arthra said this in a previous post in this thread: "individual Baha'is that make up the Assembly count for nothing in themselves..."[/QUOTE said:
Ahh! the light dawns! (sometimes a little gradually ... oh well)

No, what Arthra was referring to is the concept along the lines that there is no clergy. There is no single person in the Faith, even a Hand of the Cause, who has the authority to tell any Baha'i "you must believe this," or "this absolutely means that" or "only this viewpoint is allowable" or "you're out of line!" Thus the principle -- no individual can impose his take on another, there is no channel to the top, to a "kingship" where any individual can lodge in the administative system and lord it over or tyrannize anyone.

If, in a consulting group, a brand new Baha'i with no education, working as a hotel maintenance person, offers an opinion -- it is valued and considered with exactly the same weight as the opinion of a person who has been a Baha'i from birth, holds nine university degrees, and sits on the Universal House of Justice. The consulting group develops a consensus from all offered opinions. The ideas or opinions are judged or used based on their own merit, regardless of the apparent "rank" of the person who offered them.

Likewise, the institutions of the Faith must regard the requests, questions, difficulties, and recommendations of any member of the faith as equally important and valuable.

This strict absence of authority residing in an individual is to protect the development and free exchange of diversity of opinion and thought whilst maintaining the ties of unity (love). (NOT, and please God, NEVER, uniformity.)

(Indeed, most of the so-called 'splinters' are the carpings of individuals whose desire to get the Baha'is to bow down to them (or their particular opinion or interpretion) as "king" were frustrated. IMO)
 
Namaste! :)

Vajradhara said:
the reason that this seems confusing is that Arthra said this in a previous post in this thread:

"individual Baha'is that make up the Assembly count for nothing in themselves..."

I think this is just a miscommunication, and that what Arthra MEANT is that Baha'is who are on elected bodies have no special status whatever, but are "just Baha'is" like everyone else!

In this respect, EVERY Baha'i counts and is special, whether serving on an assembly or not--and for that matter, EVERY person in the world is equally special!

But the point we were trying to make is that someone who's been elected is not therefore "special" for that reason.

(And if I'm wrong, I'm sure Arthra will correct me!)

Sorry if we were unclear!

Regards,

Bruce
 
Namaskar,

>>>I've read a bit about Baha'i here in these forums and it strikes me as remarkably similar to another "new religious movement" that I have had some experience with called Ananda Marga. Like Baha'i, or rather what I know of Baha'i, Ananda Marga considers itself a universalist form of spirituality, yet reveres one man as a divine messenger, elevating him to god-like status.>>>

Ananda Marga does not consider itself as a "universalist form of spirituality" but as a mystical path. All mystical paths are seen as being the same Path of Bliss or Ananda Marga. Criticizing other paths is strongly discouraged in Ananda Marga but dogma, superstition, ritualism and sectarian attitudes as found in religions are criticized in the Guru's talks.

>>>Anandamurti[/b][/url] claimed to be the Guru of the entire human race (but don't tell any Margiis that I told you that here!). ;)>>>

This "claim" of Anandamurti is never made explicit, nor is it ever propagated by his followers. However, in the teachings Shiva and Krishna are considered as 'Taraka Brahma' (a tantric concept), a kind of mediating (tangential) point between Saguna Brahma (expressed Consciousness) and Nirguna Brahma (unexpressed Consciousness).

It is up to the followers themselves to accept Anandamurti as another expression of Taraka Brahma or not but I have never heard anyone even discuss the matter in the years I was involved in this organisation. It simply has no significance for one's spiritual progress. Having said that, Ananda Marga is a mystical path, so sooner or later the Self is identified with the Guru, who is considered to be beyond time, place and person. So the actual Guru is not P.R.Sarkar the man.

>>>Before I close this post, I should clarify that I was involved with A.M. for around three years. I learned many, many helpful things, but in the end became disillusioned with the dogma that the organization subtly propagates in the name of universalism.>>>

Three years is a short time and not nearly enough to get to know an ideology or a movement well enough. Ananda Marga actually strongly opposes all kinds of dogma. If you mean that some of the members have expressed a kind of smugness about the superiority of the ideology of Ananda Marga then that says nothing about the ideology or indeed the organization as a whole. Such weaknesses can be found in members of any spiritual or religious organization and much more so in members of organizations with less mystical content.

>>>"Yes, yes, all those other faiths are good, but you should really listen to what ______ says, because he says it best. His is the word for present-day humanity.">>>

Never have I heard an Ananda Margi say such things like "His is the word for presentday humanity". However, considering that only Shiva and Krishna are recognized as earlier expressions of Taraka Brahma and that the qualifications for such an expression are very extensive and high, no other later historical figure besides Anandamurti would qualify. Nevertheless many of the talks of Anandamurti include teachings of Lord Buddha (who is addressed as Lord) and some of the practices in Ananda Marga were taken from the teachings of Buddha.

I have heard some of the teachings of the Bahai faith and the universal aspect seems to have some parallels with Ananda Marga ideology. However in Ananda Marga no-one is told they should change their faith because there is a better one. Rather spirituality is recognized in all mystical paths beyond the limitations of the sectarian religions.

Andrew
 
Andrew,

I don't have time to reply in depth to your comments this morning. I will try to get back to the forum this evening to give your posts my full attention. I don't know anywere near enough about Anandamurti to make a point by point comparison.

Yes, the similarities are intriguing. But, on the surface at least, there seems to be a significant difference between Anandamurti's "Taraka Brahma" (if I am correct in assuming this is his term for a major Messenger/Intermediary and the concept of "Manifestation" taught by Baha'u'llah.

And it would seem that Baha'u'llah's embrace of the Messengers of the past may be broader than Anandamurti's - proposing that all the great Prophet/Founders of the west are part of the same unfolding plan of "progressive revelation."

I believe I may have posted some links back around post 2 or 3 in this thread. If you have the time and inclination, I would suggest you study the first few pages of Part II of Baha'u'llah's Kitab-i-Iqan which can be found at
http://bahai-library.com/

That these figures inauguerate major cycles in the unfoldment of human civilization, is one of the specific "indicators" of a major Manifestation in the Baha'i view. We also consider that They reveal teachings which "burst the wineskin" of the former dispensation to such a degree that it is not possible for them to be adequately understood and implemented from within the framework of the former faiths.

It would require extensive study and serious thought, I believe, to clearly apprehend the teachings of both "claimants" and make an informed decision as to which of these Figures more truly reveals Reality.

Perhaps you would have the time and interest to undertake it - today I must run.

I look forward to discussing the Ananadamurti movement with you further as I would like to learn more about it.

blessings & peace!
bfg
 
barefootgal9 said:
That these figures inauguerate major cycles in the unfoldment of human civilization, is one of the specific "indicators" of a major Manifestation in the Baha'i view. We also consider that They reveal teachings which "burst the wineskin" of the former dispensation to such a degree that it is not possible for them to be adequately understood and implemented from within the framework of the former faiths.

I think there are two angles on the "burst the wineskin" aspect. One is that the religion at hand may be old and show its age (it's scripture doubtful, it's adminstration not as originally set out for whatever reason, it's traditions bound by unauthorized ideas....) In this sense the old religion may be so far from how it began that it's hard to recognize the original meaning of it's scriptures. However any serious effort to resolve the matter will require endless debate. So rather than do that the Manifestation addresses the same Source of the teachings and to the extent humanity now is the same as humanity then then the teachings are the same and to the extent that now is different from then, the teachings are different.

This idea is completely different than supposing that the old religion taught less truth than the new one. "To maintain that the testimony of Providence was incomplete, that it hath therefore been the cause of the denial of the people, is but open blasphemy. How far from the grace of the All-Bountiful and from His loving providence and tender mercies it is to single out a soul from amongst all men for the guidance of His creatures, and, on one hand, to withhold from Him the full measure of His divine testimony, and, on the other, inflict severe retribution on His people for having turned away from His chosen One! Nay, the manifold bounties of the Lord of all beings have, at all times, through the Manifestations of His divine Essence, encompassed the earth and all that dwell therein. Not for a moment hath His grace been withheld, nor have the showers of His loving-kindness ceased to rain upon mankind."

So God through His Messengers withheld nothing - on the other hand He also says " All that I have revealed unto thee with the tongue of power, and have written for thee with the pen of might, hath been in accordance with thy capacity and understanding, not with My state and the melody of My voice."

So God has not said everything He can say. This is a second sense in which the wineskin can burst - because the Ocean of God's knowledge can never be ultimately contained, but that in measure to the age is it revealed.
 
women participation in Administration

I know the thread about women participating in the Administrative Order of the Baha'i faith has been back a while but it turns out some numbers can be had - with some difficulty. There is a unique publication, _The Baha'is_ which in a magazine format reviews and introduces the Faith and many qualities of it. Many people have this available in print. There is also a website based on it and a CD that can be ordered. That magazine has information in it on the female participation in the National Assemblies. However the online version of the document doesn't note those tables. Also I wrote to the House of Justice some years ago and got some extensions to the tables. Now the problem is I've got to dig up these documents from a while back and type them up or something.... It might take me a few days but I should be able to put something together for this.....
 
barefootgal9 said:
Andrew,
Yes, the similarities are intriguing. But, on the surface at least, there seems to be a significant difference between Anandamurti's "Taraka Brahma" (if I am correct in assuming this is his term for a major Messenger/Intermediary and the concept of "Manifestation" taught by Baha'u'llah.

And it would seem that Baha'u'llah's embrace of the Messengers of the past may be broader than Anandamurti's - proposing that all the great Prophet/Founders of the west are part of the same unfolding plan of "progressive revelation."

That these figures inauguerate major cycles in the unfoldment of human civilization, is one of the specific "indicators" of a major Manifestation in the Baha'i view. We also consider that They reveal teachings which "burst the wineskin" of the former dispensation to such a degree that it is not possible for them to be adequately understood and implemented from within the framework of the former faiths.

Barefootgal9 Namaskar,

I find it somewhat difficult to discuss these matters with someone from a different background. Different movements use different ideas and ways of expressing them. I will find time to read some more about the thoughts of the founder of Bahai.

Taraka Brahma is a philosophical concept from Tantric philosophy to explain the advent of great gurus (Sadgurus) like Krishna and Shiva. They are supposed to have come at times when humanity was in great crises and the many prayers of suffering people caused Taraka Brahma to take a human body to change the destiny of humanity by His example, His work and His teachings. He would then move on to different planets in the universe.

But what about all the other great teachers and founders of religions? They may have been great or less great but they were born as humans with a past in previous incarnations. That's where they differ from Taraka Brahma, which is in fact a mysterious figure. It is not said that Taraka Brahma is an "incarnation of God" because it is impossible for God to incarnate himself in one body.

Some religions talk of prophets, messengers, messiahs, son of God or of avatars. In Tantric philosophy most of these would perhaps come under rishis ("wise men"). It is interesting that the only two persons to be called 'Lord' by Anandamurti are Lord Buddha and Lord Caitanya, who didn't claim any special title for themselves.

Once you're on a particular path and you feel comfortable with the philosophy, it's hard to get used to how other paths think and express themselves. With Buddhism and with other mystical paths however, I feel less of this difficulty.

I have sometimes wondered about why Taraka Brahma would each time be born and die in India. Perhaps this was the place where most people and mystics lived and where most major human cultures of the world came together and blended (Lord Shiva married a black girl, a white girl and a mongoloid girl).

Andrew
 
women participation in Administration

Took me less time than I feared though I had to do some work getting it all together.... attached is a jpeg of the continental or quasi-continental averages of women elected to National Spiritual Assemblies. Note each Assembly is composed of nine people, elected by secret ballot with no electioneering (no "running" for office.) So one woman on average would mean 11% on the graph.

The closest I can come to documentation is _The Baha'is_ magazine which is in print widely. The data is extended by a letter received from the Research Dept. of the Universal House of Justice back in 1997. I do not have the particulars of that letter at my finger tips at this point but I'm still digging for it.
 

Attachments

  • status.jpg
    status.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 624
Re: women participation in Administration

The June 5th 2004 _American Baha'i_ newspaper had a table of info along the same lines but more particular to the US Baha'i community and its governing instituions, the Local Spiritual Assemblies (LSAs.)

To summarize from either 1997 or 2003 surveys:

LSA members (2003) 57% F 43% M
Overall population of Baha'is (1997) 60% F 39% M (1% not answered)
US nonprofit board members (2000) 8% F 92% M

and now a summary of racial backgrounds

LSA members (2003) 56% Cauc., 10% African Am. ...
Overall population of Baha'is (1997) 62% Cauc., 8% African Am. ...
US nonprofit board members (2000) 85% Cauc., 9% African Am. ...
 
Back
Top